









































p n ^ - *v..\ N ^ * <y> \ 

' »'ft* AA 5^4°. \«A 

1^1.= o>* J .«» ^ 




' v -IW^V O^ % * ^ 

.. ... *V,.. r °V ‘-» 0 >°„<..,%* 

"V s _ *t VA AV K ^ c* O ^ . 

s\y :«■»* ^ * 


K o ^ -V Vv *> w* <J>* V > U “L 

%“'<> » t'*' i < X S „„„ ^<6 *•“ «» *'-5- & „ Ui.V' • >■'* 
w°o \ P/U£ f °o 

«* ^ f4lSk'. w *®*^ • 

t/> 

® v *»V "*.'V % -■ ■ v v v.”’*/<>., 


}/S r ^9) /VP?v\l 

* °* * ,n * 

z 


y ^ A’^WV C 

o^'"*v^^X # * d ‘°V'* 

^ X <y * * A> c»^ «> j 

° V<V O r AtS® 2 5 

\V /*> _ V^f'E^T ° -VpAfV 0 A^/A \\A 91 .A"* Aa. * 1 

aS* VV 0 wjSKW a> </), o W/AjSsAN * •V’ ^ x 

<v <£• -v <#v *’ / 6^ v 4 ^ * A 

.* <\ / c^> .6 O., Y n „ i -4 v* v> s 

’ ” «p^%V‘ y>r>A 

A/w-$ ** 


A «'’» *> 

2, ° <1 
/-T^ (0S^M£r5& "* 0 

^o * » 2 V o 

..^r..^^.x^ 

'•VMvMV» v ^ 

^ ‘ # ' w ' % * er^ 4 a, Af. ❖; .CA o, * 

-^'^n T - _vV 

- v . -.n < -. n- < 


-. Ao^ :»«: w *mm^ V °#il* V *w 

, ^M)xk < -fv A ^.; ' , |> / v” r , *. A fJtQBk,* V jjT * (V ^f. 

* •'j-A .’AWAi * Jpg * 

,V^>. J „ 


^ v <<, 

'V V s 

<. a7Taa c 

K °o ' 0° .-^ 

O < ^v ‘^Iv^ ■* v O j'^’^s 3 ^ A o 

l ° ^do •* ^" s <, * ,. 0, 1 a^ V ok0 ^°^° O 0<( . V^' 9 *! w ^ “"' qT * o^ v^ 

\ \f(0tX{ * ■ 

/ A ^j, °^P» A A ' » >' '^j, o-h/j^v* •■%. » » o_- „ a 

°A°«*’ o°A‘ XX ’ i :lAc—*A 0 -° -• • 

; ^ 0 ' 




f o » s’’ 


•> k" 1 


J A. <i\sF^\-S& ,r „ C< f 


* o s 



; * A\ • ■ 

A> 0^2 ^ 




^.d^' a.aaaa A '< 

cpVA'A, ,^\^°v.\ 



% _<V- o' 

>0 <■ A i K; * OV 

%# :Mh\ \y »j 

°mm: 4>^ *.wa£: <?\ °J 

'O. < 

. *- - ., -- ^ 

+ O A ** csKttvji * X*. 0 -♦ ' 

. * 0 ? ;4mt,' V 
■ a 0 -. . 


- 0 —- -— -• 0 

% ** 

„ ' v v - « u i e « 4*, 

Ay C} 

^S°V« ° 

■ % V 1 ■ - A<\,:.” 3 HO >A^ - * A, 

o A A o* * A A :^§£ih\ '<r< 

’>A-aA\ j ”ooAa;a>o'°^ '■' 


A A 


\A A.* 
. A A •' 


O ^ S' 




, - ri^A *> 'r v 

^°x« A ^°’ / a ^ 

O xV ,'A,'. % A - 

°, VA » isjSSlA r ApS S 

/,&■ % °y<^s. * 


yyO 

o n \^TA 0 o v ^ 

'X*'X X\\°'*'>''' * a. 

° X X ^Ar ^ :#i°o ^ ^ 

® vv o r Arv J z vj % o 


A A 



- \ A A 5 A 

* AnoV 


,. otA;*- »AA.. X’Xy 

y > 4* > * 

° V-V O 

, ^ v /\\W; A A 

A ^ ^ r*Y * ■ 0 ' 


**>o ” 

> A V/k o «A Ap ^ A 

- V 4S| z o Spp, r 'ArA 3 -■ 

■ >;- v^ V \ 

* <y V' ». ^ oA ^ -& * 


> - ^ « '•«^-‘ «b^ =^k' .*•« 


0 ^ 
vf>. « ^ 

r /*0 O 

s-*. •* ‘-zvjjm} £ v o A'^AsA* J ^ o 

A/»”"VAx«”AA‘ d A ^ 


Vv 

- .* A\ * 

’-'A 0 ° yy^i>S 
■ X .° 


> *»M»* **>«<>* ^° 

v, ,vyZZJ* 9t> *° 

* ^ \ s 

yv « \rs s 


^^ OHO ;v ^%T ° N °^V */ *t% 

* \p _c> „ tfusg /H, <1 Vy. ,«?v * ^ Lf®y% o "sr..Cs 15 t^\vJS/y% ° 




!%* A\ \^0» IIP?*" <c? S \,' 

’ cP^>0 ” A<»^\ 0<^; 

<=«§»* •: ^M-i :«&- «Wv* •»'. ■W .‘•Ma/- 


* <^°/v * 

p ^ o n * 

^■V ^"VA '^. i ’ f n ^ <$ <, u 4> * 

- ^ . >A A> * a 5) <* /*• V s s ^ Q 

■> ^ % <A -'“’itfMfe » ^ ■& * ^ 

O V'N ° r °vP <0 - SSA^S^ Z \S<<y 

l cM Z ' 


O M 


^ V 'ri 

* .V <fc 


7 vf. 

*>o 



-V a - ., ,0^ A”"”*., r O a<^ c°NC 

. X r .™*. ^ - mm -. V ;4ffe* V :£§|: ^ ° 

'- vv 

- .VA J %*.■*#» ^>^ 






O * aeftfZb * O «»* ^^Ks» ' r V. G * £tf/yyb> ■? 

<z> a *. ap{\I///s £ 7 - ,s> _x^ _ cFoxxwiT^, <r *><> <t *■ &F\i///yy^~ ->■ 





V-0 

v * 

> - °o.'♦ 

. ? n * vv 




»n 



v/ • *«*»* 


°xTS' 





o A 

v _o* ^ 

» V .; 

•>%.. ;v• ■ : °’i p0 -' *»°o 

V s % ^ CV _0^ 


.c*.'V" s / ,u 

~ O' O 

W 

>A 


; i, *‘t\° ° 

^ A> cSovxwti^ rf. <. 




Vx ff n * 




7 <^ 


> “ 1 1 " v V s s « O 

s ''<•■<"' ° 3 b : '•’*■&' : £m/fii \ s 

L ' ., 'V' 0 » ’■■‘ x^ c o» c , ^<j» " j « “ " V° °- ° 

0° ^ ^ . *. ^ rP . 




<1 fi 


& o „ i■A 

« ”■ ° A r/~\ * A.A c o» c 

- VA rt. _ V tr ^.VJ v V L/-v -X ^ U 

, ^C ;<•#: K l#; K r 

V '”-*>Z » ^**" #, >^ *'^'" “^v< -vC >0 “°>^ * o^*” 

o ^ > « v ^ateh,*. % y*w t as- - -" * ^ 

O vQ^. M J^lllllllli^S r» 







'W ° BMk''i *<>£ ° 

^A : “ ? /V 

'»A" 

»^fe. r 

1L ' ‘ < -' A ’ A. C H°>., ^ 

• } ov^ 


o 

*.<^ \°*‘ V #%' |, A*.'S t ' ^ 

x , --o.^ A X s ^ 

/ .O v * „ ^ O. 

^ + °.A aA^ 


" ’ ° ‘ f V°»* li 




p-fj 


; ^ « 

» x°-4 : 

- -n -J. -- * rP ^ ^ 

• "s^ . . , °4> , = «°' , < / > ^ » of% 

Kf A .'Si'; \/ r*|ifo % A V 

o-. ,> L '‘, :> V’"’'^' t "‘- < <A*"’A 0 .'•'•a'V'' 0 '”' 

V O ^ JB^.% o 

vo s 


IS°° ^P 



.S * O, 


r A o '".T A,"’ O 

^-«^V‘ ono v 0 



■v’Pj 

■b. ^\ & y^Wo. //aW / 

: V-V U A#ltA r -®\Jsr|«a° VV o r 

: A\ ip/ m" /\ 

" • • •'*<• %&s>° * ssi'S* * * s » a>oo° * i >^ 

* ^ ,IHS ^ o X°< * 



^ -sA <, * 9^. ^okO 1 ^ 

A V' ^ 

* 




^yf ■< 

r /*o 

-^°-f « 

*\A.. ° 0 4-^* 0 > <0, % o0 

V s ^ v <r .» 

^ »A<n>CA A A> 



r. - W “ <;? 

»^. c vV" o°V’ 1 ' 

^ <t 

6 v*o « 

\’-WJ/\- 

t « o J, ^■J' s 11 * A 



, ^ a ln^r ^ v- o’ 

•i" 4 A<\ / ❖, -% Oa ^ 

^ ’ i^ f oNc« *<<> <,I> « L1B 4 4aa 

■f O-v ,A> a C ^ <f> r° S rsy>, -> P"» 

^ O . * c~s5^V S-. ^ W O . S ^-VTvVV 2 -? ^ ^ 

„ y OV ° V » f y<y « csa--'* lajKK * A- 

O iP^J >- ^ f * atlSPa ° ° >P'/1 

’V ,• .* \ '*D„o* ^p ... v* 

.<y y ft °* ^ p s 5 <<y . 

. ^ . f? Pi . o .-A 



k A <s 

A. 



v S ammL''* 9f 

O 

,cO 

V> O 

^ - 4 ^' i> 

>a 4 ° SMfe. * °. A > 

Ua' <, ¥^W&Ok'- Ai A o 




































NOAA Estuary-of-the-Month 
Seminar Series No. 5 


cy. 2-2- 
3 33 


Chesapeake Bay: 
Issues, Resources, 
Status, and Manage 



July 1988 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOAA Estuarine Programs Office 




















N/tflO nal 



Chesapeake Bay: 

Issues, Resources, 
Status, and Management 


Edited by Samuel E. McCoy 

Proceedings of a Seminar 
Held September 23, 1985 
Washington, D.C. 


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
C. William Verity, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
William E. Evans, Under Secretary 


NOAA Estuarine Programs Office 

Virginia K. Tippie, Director 


,c&C ^4Uf 

ills' 


9V7 


NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 


AND 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
PRESENT AN 

ESTUARY-OF-THE-MONTH SEMINAR 
ON 

CHESAPEAKE BAY 

ISSUES, RESOURCES, STATUS, AND MANAGEMENT 


MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1985 














CONTENTS 


PAGE 

EDITOR'S PREFACE vii 

Mr. Samuel E. McCoy 

WELCOME i 

Dr. James P. Thomas 

INTRODUCTION OF SENATOR MATHIAS 3 

Mr. William G. Gordon 

CONGRESSIONAL VIEWS 5 

Senator Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. 

SEMINAR INTRODUCTION 13 

Dr. Christopher F. D'Elia 

CHESAPEAKE BAY, HISTORY, RESOURCES. 

AND POLLUTION 

HISTORY, GEOLOGY, AND DEMOGRAPHICS 19 

Drs. Robert B. Biggs and Grace S. Brush 

CLIMATE AND CIRCULATION 33 

Dr. William C. Boicourt 

RESOURCES AND ECONOMICS 41 

Dr. Herbert M. Austin 

TOXIC POLLUTION: ORGANIC POLLUTANTS 45 

Dr. Robert J. Huggett 

TOXIC POLLUTION 49 

Dr. James G. Sanders 

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION 59 

Drs. Robert J. Orth and Polly J. Penhale 


v 




CONTENTS (cont'd) 


PAGE 

SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES 

NITROGEN VS. PHOSPHORUS 69 

Dr. Christopher F. D'Elia 

ANOXIA 89 

Drs. Jay L. Taft and Thomas C. Malone 

THE ROLES OF BLUE-GREEN ALGAE 99 

Drs. Lawrence W. Haas and Hans W. Paerl 

MANAGEMENT ISSUES 

CASE STUDY: POTOMAC RIVER - BETTER OR WORSE? 117 

Drs. James P. Bennett and Edward Callender 

ASSESSING ENVIRONMENT QUALITY: NEW TECHNIQUES 131 

Dr. Walter R. Boynton 

THE STEWARDSHIP OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY'S FISHERIES 

RESOURCES 139 

Drs. Cluney Stagg and Brian J. Rothschild 

MANAGEMENT OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY'S WATERFOWL 

RESOURCES 145 

Dr. Matthew C. Perry 

PANEL DISCUSSION 

Participants 161 

Discussion 16 3 


vi 





EDITOR'S PREFACE 


The following are the proceedings of a seminar on Chesapeake 
Bay held on September 23, 1985, at the Herbert C. Hoover 
Building of the U.S. Department of Commerce in Washington, D.C. 

It was one of a continuing series of "Estuary-of-the-Month" 
seminars sponsored by the NOAA Estuarine Programs Office (EPO), 
held with the objective of bringing to public attention the 
important research and management issues of our Nation's estu¬ 
aries. To this end, the seminar first presented a historical, 
scientific overview of the Bay by senior investigators, followed 
by an examination of management issues by scientists-managers of 
research institutions and science agencies involved in the Bay. 

We acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Christopher F. D'Elia 
of the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory who had principal respon¬ 
sibility for assembling the speakers and whose long involvement 
with the Bay and its people was invaluable. The seminar was co¬ 
ordinated by Dr. James P. Thomas, EPO Senior Scientist, with the 
assistance of other members of the EPO staff. Seminar tran¬ 
scription was done by Ms. Margaret M. Powell, word processing by 
Ms. Janet A. Davis, and manuscript preparation by Ms. Alice L. 
Roberson. 


Samuel E. McCoy 

NOAA Estuarine Programs Office 
Washington, D.C. 


vn 




39 ' 


38° 

00 ' 


37‘ 

00 1 


CHESAPEAKE BAY AND MAjOR TRIBUTARIES 



PROCEEDINGS 


Welcome: Dr. lames P. Thomas 

Dr. Thomas: Good morning. My name is Jim Thomas, I'm 
Senior Scientist of the NOAA Estuarine Programs Office. 

On behalf of the NOAA Estuarine Programs Office and the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, welcome to the fifth in a 
series of Estuary-of-the-Month Seminars. Previous seminars have 
covered Narragansett Bay, Delaware Bay, Long Island Sound, 

Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay, and today Chesapeake Bay. 
These seminars are to provide a forum in which we, who are 
concerned, can devise means in which to better manage our 
Nation's estuaries in the future. 

Now I have the distinct pleasure to introduce to you today 
Bill Gordon, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. 
Bill has been the Assistant Administrator since 1981 and has a 
long and distinguished history in all aspects of environmental 
concern, fishery science, and management. He came up through 
the field as a fishery biologist in the Great Lakes Region where 
he learned firsthand that cumulative degradation of the 
environment can take place. 

He has witnessed the decline and now the rebirth of Lake 
Erie. Prior to coming to Washington, he was the Regional 
Director for the Northeast Region of the National Marine 
Fisheries Service where he became well-versed in complicated and 
often controversial natural resource issues. 

Bill is an administrator who can see the big picture. He 
understands the relation of a healthy ecosystem to healthy, 
productive, natural resources. Because of this understanding, 
he has supported habitat initiatives and was instrumental in 
developing the National Habitat Conservation Policy. 

Recognizing the importance of estuaries as fishery habitats 
and as actual resources in themselves, he has supported the 
establishment of the Estuarine Programs Office which coordinates 
estuarine research and policies within NOAA. It is my pleasure 
to introduce Bill Gordon, the Assistant Administrator for 
Fisheries. 


1 










































































































INTRODUCTION TO SENATOR MATHIAS 


Mr. Gordon: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. I 
do want to thank you for coming because I hope you all share my 
enthusiasm for estuaries and, particularly, the Chesapeake Bay. 

I'm here today to introduce a man who is so committed to the 
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay that he really needs no 
introduction. He comes from the State of Maryland and has 
represented that State in the House and in the Senate since 
1960. 


Senator Mathias's list of accomplishments on the Bay is 
impressive spanning over 15 years. As far back as 1969 the 
Senator sponsored bills to create interstate commissions for the 
Potomac and Susquehanna Rivers. In that year he sponsored an 
amendment to increase the authorization for a comprehensive Bay 
study involved with the formation of a Bi-State Chesapeake Bay 
Commission to insure better management. 

Between 1976 and 1979, the Senator sponsored numerous 
Chesapeake Bay initiatives, including establishing a U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency Program authorizing a 5-year 
study and the Chesapeake Bay Research Coordination Bill. 

He has spearheaded efforts to authorize and appropriate 
money to EPA, NOAA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. 
Department of the Interior, and the Army Corps of Engineers and 
the states to study the various problems and develop a 
blueprint for restoring the Bay's resources. 

So arduous in support of the Bay was he that Senator Mathias 
received the award from the Federal-State Chesapeake Bay 
Conference for the greatest contribution to the Bay's cleanup 
programs in 1983. The Senator has elevated the issues and 
problems confronting the Bay to the level of the White House. 
These accomplishments represent only a small portion of the 
Senator's contributions. 

Perhaps there's no greater supporter of the Chesapeake Bay 
alive today than Senator Mathias. So it is my great honor to 
welcome Senator Mathias as the Keynote Speaker for the Chesa¬ 
peake Bay Estuary-Of-The-Month Seminar. Senator, thank you very 
much for coming. We appreciate it very much. 


3 
















































CONGRESSIONAL VIEWS 


Senator Mathias: Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon. First 
of all, let me say what a wonderful idea I think it is to have 
an Estuary-of-the-Month. As you were ticking off the estuaries 
that you’ve already looked at and ones that you're going to 
visit, I was overwhelmed by a sense of wanting to get out and 
get on the road and see all those places. 

It's one thing to look at a map or to look at a study or a 

list of statistics about an estuary and in sort of a general way 

absorb what it's all about. But to look at it specifically and 
directly and to study it is worth a great deal because I think 
that will give you not only a sense of what each estuary — the 
characteristics of each estuary — but will give you a sense of 

how they relate to each other. And I think doing it once a 

month, an Estuary-of-the-Month, is a great idea. And I'm very 
happy to be able to visit with you as you take a hard look and a 
careful look at the Chesapeake Bay. 

Now I think we have to settle one thing at the outset. That 
is, there is no doubt in my mind, as I think there is probably 
very little doubt in your mind, that you know more about the 
subject than I do. Certainly you know a good deal more about 
many aspects of the subject than I know. That makes me approach 
this job of talking about the Chesapeake with you with a great 
deal of humility because many of you have been highly trained, 
and have spent years in professional practice in various aspects 
of environmental science that deals with estuaries such as the 
Chesapeake Bay. 

My real qualification, as Mr. Gordon has suggested, is that 
I've known the Bay a long time and have been fascinated with the 
Bay. When I was a boy my family would occasionally make forays 
into the Eastern Shore. In those days, the way you got to the 
Eastern Shore was by driving into the center of the City of 
Annapolis. Where the Field House at the Naval Academy now 
stands on filled land was a ferry slip. Then you drove a few 
miles across Kent Island and took a second ferry over to the 
mainland of the Eastern Shore. Having done that a number of 
times, I felt a very close association with the Bay and every¬ 
thing about it. So it has been a lifetime love affair. In 
talking to you today I have a practical difficulty sensing that 
you're the experts, to try to lay out something for you that may 
be of interest and value. They tell a story about a little girl 
who was late for Sunday School and her mother was looking for 
her and found her rummaging around in her bureau drawers and 
closets. And her mother asked her what she was doing, she ought 


5 



to be on her way to Sunday School. She said, "Yes, but what can 
I wear that Jesus hasn't seen?" So I'm a little in that situa¬ 
tion this morning. What can I tell you that you don't know? 

Well, the first thing it seems to me in dealing with an 
estuary is to comprehend what an enormous, complex system it 
really is. In the case of the Chesapeake, it is, of course, a 
very large estuary which draws from an enormous territory. That 
creates political and economic consequences that have to be 
taken into account in practical terms. You're looking at a 
drainage basin that begins in the North in Southern New York; 
includes most of Central Pennsylvania; and all of Maryland 
except for just a very small portion of the northwest corner of 
Maryland which drains into the Ohio and Mississippi system. It 
includes great territories in West Virginia and Virginia, all of 
the District of Columbia, and parts of drainage from Delaware. 

So it's a very big system that we're talking about and that 
has consequences that go beyond the political and the economic 
issues. It has consequences that deal with citizen behavior. 

If some teenage kid is draining his crankcase in Harper's 
Ferry, West Virginia, just pulls the plug and lets the crankcase 
oil drain off the street, that oil is going to end up in the 
Chesapeake Bay sooner or later. So what happens in remote 
places can have a direct and consequential impact on the 
Chesapeake Bay. 

A real estate developer in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, can 
have an impact on the silting of the Bay, because the 
Susquehanna, which flows through Harrisburg, provides more than 
half of the freshwater to the Chesapeake Bay. It carries 
enormous amounts of freight other than water into the Bay, 
including silt and some polluting elements. So if that 
contractor in Harrisburg isn't conscious of the impact of his 
actions, he becomes a problem for Chesapeake Bay even though 
he's miles and miles removed from it. 

Well, one of the places to start with the Bay, of course, is 
at the very beginning. One of the most fascinating descriptions 
of the Bay ever written was one of the first. An intrepid 
British explorer, Captain Gabriel Archer, explored the reaches 
of the Bay in June of the year 1607. Of course that was the 
time of extensive exploration and adventure on the coasts of 
America. Captain Archer wrote down what he saw. I would 
recommend his journal to you. I will just quote very briefly 


6 


from it. It provides a kind of catalogue for us of the marine 
life that was then visible in the Chesapeake Bay. Captain 
Archer wrote, "The main river abounds with sturgeon." Imagine! 
Not the Caspian Sea, the Chesapeake Bay abounds with sturgeon, 
"...large and excellent good." I wonder if they got any caviar 
from that sturgeon? Think of what we're missing as a product. 

He goes on to say, "....having also at the mouth of every 
brook and every creek exceedingly good fish of diverse kind... 
and in the large sounds near the sea are most fish, banks of 
oysters and many giant crabs better in taste than ours, one able 
to suffice four men." Think of it. Frightening thought, isn't 
it? 


Well, unhappily, it's been a long time since we in the Chesa¬ 
peake have been able to see one crab able to suffice four men. 

And I suppose that brings us to the next chapter in the story. 

We ought to consider the economic cost of the degradation of the 
Bay. Not just being deprived of huge crabs, but very practical 
costs in terms of the harvest that could be reached in the Bay. 

Look at the statistics for 1880, a hundred years ago. You 
might think that life has progressed on this planet in some 
beneficial way the last hundred years and the harvest in the 
Chesapeake Bay must be better now than it was then. Well, in 
1880 the oyster take was 123 million pounds of meat. But the 
National Marine Fisheries Service survey of 1968 reports that in 
1968 that there were only 25 million pounds, just a fifth or 
twenty percent of what the take had been in 1880. By 1968, we 
were beginning to worry. In 1968 we were beginning to recognize 
that something was wrong, so you would hope that 20 years later 
things would have gotten better. But by 1984 it had dropped 
fifty percent from the 1968 level to only twelve million pounds, 
that is ten percent of what it had been a hundred years ago. 

It doesn't take much imagination to translate that drop in 
the oyster take into jobs; into nutritional values that would 
have been available; into wealth as far as the State is con¬ 
cerned; and into all the different factors which can be derived 
from that decrease, considering what had once been a bountiful 
harvest. 

You can take similar figures for shad, for rockfish, striped 
bass, for almost any species that you want to look at. And they 
are all the same dismal, downward trend. 


7 


There are a lot of competing interests, each one seeking to 
extract the maximum for its own good, that have caused these 
severe changes in really all aspects of the Bay's ecosystem. 

When we started out intensively looking at the Bay's pro¬ 
blems we thought we would find a goat or maybe one or two 
goats. But it now appears that there are a number of problems. 
The whole system has problems, and it needs to be repaired and 
reinforced. 

At the rate things were going less than a decade ago, if 
that downward trend which was illustrated by the oyster take 
continued, then the largest and richest estuary in North America 
could have become a "Dead Sea." Not at some future time, but in 
our lifetime. 

We had an interesting author in Maryland named Earl Swepson 
a generation ago who wrote a number of very readable books about 
the Chesapeake Bay country. He published one in 1923 in which 
he accurately predicted what has since come to pass. In talking 
about oystering and oystermen and the oyster fishery in general 
he said, "Maryland has established no really constructive policy 
to maintain this great natural wealth. The State of Virginia 
through oyster culture and planting on a large scale has been 
able within the past decade to stem the pollution within its 
waters. The citizens of Maryland, if they propose to maintain 
this great natural resource, must get together on broad and 
constructive planning or it will be only a matter of years 
before the watermen with their picturesgue craft will be forced 
to find other means of livelihood, while the State's loss will 
be many millions of dollars." 

Well, that proved to be all too prophetic. And even the 
fact that there were prophets at that time, 50 years ago, we let 
that prophecy fulfill itself. 

Finally, we were able to undertake the Environmental Pro¬ 
tection Agency's study, and that was a major change. I recall 
with enormous pleasure the real beginning of that study. My 
wife and my two sons, who were at that time just boys, undertook 
to tour the Bay. And we started in Baltimore, went up to Havre 
De Grace and down the Eastern Shore to Crisfield and across the 
Bay to the Patuxent and back to Annapolis. It was a wonderful 
experience as a family. The outgrowth of that experience, 
because we stopped at points along the Bay and talked to the 
experts at each locality, was the concept for this Chesapeake 
Bay study. And we ultimately were able to get the Congress to 
appropriate 27 million dollars for the purpose of the study. It 
cost roughly 5 million a year with some additional money to 
clean it up and complete it at the end. 


8 


The picture that that study provided us for the Chesapeake 
Bay was not a very romantic or pretty picture because the 
problems were getting ahead of the Bay's natural capability to 
deal with those problems on its own. But while painting this 
somewhat gloomy picture, the EPA-Chesapeake Bay study gave us 
every reason to hope that with the proper steps, taken as 
guickly, as possible we could restore the Bay’s health. 

Of course, one of the things that the study emphasized is 
that if the Bay is to survive it has to be addressed as a total 
entity. The waters of the Bay can't be treated as the Maryland 
waters north of the state line and the Virginia waters south of 
the state line. The crabs that spawn in Hampton Roads and then 
move up the Bay don't know where that line is. The oyster which 
is produced north of that line and flows south doesn't know 
where that line is. You have to ignore those political bound¬ 
aries and treat the Bay as an entity. Not only the Bay itself, 
but this enormous basin with its multi-state complex problems. 


Another thing that the study has done is to indicate what 
tools we need to do the job; this is enormously important. The 
fact that we have already begun to apply those tools and have 
gotten some results, is grounds for some encouragement. 

We’ve gotten the States working together — you know, for years 
Maryland and Virginia have contested the waters of the Chesa¬ 
peake Bay. In fact, when Lord Baltimore first sailed into 
Maryland — settling the first Maryland State Colony — he was 
occupying land that heretofore had belonged to the Colony of 
Virginia, the Old Dominion. And a Virginian named Captain 
Clayburne contested that Maryland claim, and they actually 
fought a naval battle that the Virginians and the Marylanders 
fought in about 1630 off Kent Island. And there's been bad 
feelings between Maryland and Virginia all of those years. 


It has been impossible to get Marylanders and Virginians to 
cooperate on Bay problems. In fact, within a relatively short 
time ago, oystermen in Maryland were shooting at oystermen from 
Virginia who they thought were poaching in Maryland waters and 
vice versa. There were a couple of people killed every year in 
the oyster wars. So there were very bad feelings. It went 
beyond bad feelings; it was bad blood. 


But an extraordinary change took place w 
give John Warner considerable credit. Becau 
with John we got him interested. And he in 
interest of Governor Dalton of Virginia, and 
went down to Tangier Island. I believe that 
Island was the first overt expression of joi 
Virginia interest in the problems of the Bay 
move, things began to move politically. 


ith which I have to 
se after talking 
turn enlisted the 
the three of us 
visit to Tangier 
nt official Maryland- 
. And with that 


9 


Well, Pennsylvania had also been silent on the subject of 
the Bay. We hadn't shot at Pennsylvanians over the Bay; we had 
other territorial problems with them. But they had not taken 
any interest in the Bay until Governor Thornburg joined in this 
crusade. Because the State of Pennsylvania contributes more 
than half of the freshwater intake to the Bay, that was enor¬ 
mously important to enlist Pennsylvania in the cause of saving 
the Bay. 

In 1983, right after the EPA study was released, we were 
able to get the Governor of Maryland, the Governor of Virginia, 
the Governor of Pennsylvania, and the Mayor of the District of 
Columbia, an absolutely unprecedented line-up, to respond to the 
challenge that the study presented by making commitments on be¬ 
half of their States to address the problems outlined in the 
study. 

Capping this. President Reagan in his 1984 State-of-the- 
Union message made a major Federal commitment, which was not as 
large in dollars as we hoped it might be, but which was enor¬ 
mously important in terms of the stimulus that it gave to the 
whole Chesapeake Bay problem. He praised the administration of 
the Bay's cleanup program for a 4 year period. 

And then following the President's pledge, and I'm sure 
assisted by it, five Federal agencies have joined the under¬ 
taking, NOAA, very importantly; the Fish and Wildlife Service; 
the Army Corps of Engineers; and the Soil Conservation Service; 
and the Geological Survey. All came to Capitol Hill and in a 
rather formal and ceremonial way signed a Memorandum of Under¬ 
standing with EPA spelling out the role of each in the Chesa¬ 
peake Bay Program. 

Congress responded, notwithstanding the very stringent 
budget restraints of these days, the Congress has responded by 
appropriating funds for these agencies to perform their Bay 
missions. 

The latest chapter, in July we undertook a tour of the Bay 
in which we looked at what's happening on the spot. Paul Sar¬ 
banes, a Senator from Maryland; Lee Thomas, the EPA Adminis¬ 
trator; Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Odell; Governor 
Hughes, Governor Robb, and a number of other people, all joined 
together in making this tour of the Bay to see firsthand what 
each of the Federal agencies are contributing to the effort. 

For example, the Corps of Engineers took us to an area of 
shoreline erosion and showed us exactly what that danger is, how 
nature operates and what it can do to combat the problem. The 
Soil Conservation Service demonstrated how it's addressing the 


10 


agricultural non-point source pollution problem, which inciden¬ 
tally is now recognized as one of the very major villains in 
this whole system. The Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA 
showed us the restoration of the fisheries, and EPA demonstrated 
what it's doing to improve the water quality. So there is a 
role, an important role, for each of the stars in this drama. 

The States have come forward with very impressive roles. 
Maryland is starting a 5 year, 40 million dollar program to con¬ 
trol agriculturally related non-point source pollution. Last 
Friday a number of the members of Congress and the Governors of 
Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and the Mayor of the Dis¬ 
trict of Columbia, met with Lee Thomas in a ceremony when EPA 
released the Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection Plan. I 
think it's the first and only comprehensive plan which shows 
what the States and what the District of Columbia and what the 
Federal agencies need to do and are doing to correct the pro¬ 
blems and outline a course for the future. 

The Bay Restoration Plan is, of course, one more step along 
a very torturous path of renewal that will take many years to 
complete. And there are a lot of pitfalls on this path. Last 
week we got around one by steering a devious course in the 
Senate. The budget had not provided for the Soil Conservation 
Service personnel to deal with the very important role that they 
can play on the overall plan. And we were able to prevail in 
the adoption of an amendent, which doesn't cost a great deal of 
money, but which does give us those all important spots in soil 
conservation to continue the work of that agency. 

We have to be very precise from this point on. We started 
out in the dark. We started out, in fact, worse than in the 
dark because we had some misconceptions. We were on the wrong 
track in some respects. But now we know a great deal more than 
we have ever known about the Chesapeake Bay, probably more than 
anyone has ever known about the Chesapeake Bay, probably more 
than anyone has ever known about any estuary. So we have to 
begin to be very precise. I think if we are precise and persis¬ 
tent we can look forward to the day when the major resources are 
back, perhaps not to that bountiful stage which Captain Gabriel 
Archer found in 1607, but maybe at least back to where they were 
at the beginning of the century. 

The Bay is, of course, a tremendous legacy from the past of 
this country and this continent. And it is such a remarkable 
system, the more you study it, the more you learn what its deni¬ 
zens are — the waterfowl, the fish, everything that lives on it 
and in it and around it — the more you understand how remark¬ 
able this system is and how it interrelates. 


11 


It is amazing, but considering the abuse that the Bay has 
taken, particularly in the last century, it's as beautiful and 
as healthy as we see it to be when we visit it on some crisp, 
clear morning and watch all the myriad wonders of the Bay coming 
to life, waking up and beginning a new day. And that beauty and 
that vitality have to be preserved. That life has to be 
protected. And that life is in our hands. And the interests of 
groups like yours can be enormously effective and powerful in 
preserving it for all time. 

Thank you very much. 

Dr. Thomas: Senator Mathias, thank you very much for 
coming here today and presenting us with such a truly fine 
overview of the Bay. I think many of us can relate rather 
directly to your great love for Chesapeake Bay and the message 
you carry. Thank you. 

It is a pleasure for me to introduce Dr. Chris D'Elia and 
thank him for organizing today's seminar. Dr. D'Elia is an 
Associate Professor at the University of Maryland Center for 
Environmental and Estuarine Studies, Chesapeake Biological 
Laboratory, located at Solomons Island, Maryland. He has been 
with the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory since 1977 and has had 
major research interests in nutrient enrichment and the degrada¬ 
tion of Chesapeake Bay. Additionally, he has served on a number 
of environmental groups and panels at the State and the national 
level dealing with the Chesapeake Bay in the field of biological 
oceanography. Dr. D'Elia will be taking charge of today's 
program, including the Panel Discussion at the end of the day. 

I encourage everyone to stay through the Panel Discussion in 
order that we might learn what data and information gaps exist 
and what we might do to help improve the management of our 
Nation's estuaries. 

Chris, we're pleased to have you and your speakers today. 

I'm pleased to introduce Dr. Chris D'Elia. 


12 


SEMINAR INTRODUCTION 


Dr. D'Elia: Thank you very much, Jim. It's great to be 
here and great to have such a super turnout, and we very much 
appreciate Senator Mathias's interest and attention to this 
seminar series today. 

It's been a busy week in the Chesapeake Bay area, starting 
with the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection Plan, 
this seminar, various committee meetings, and leading up to the 
Chesapeake Bay Commission's program at the end of the week in 
Baltimore. 

This particular presentation is really designed to be a 
scientific, technical, and understandable program. If you'll 
notice, on the program I put primarily active research scien¬ 
tists in the beginning in making presentations. And we're 
starting with a morning session which is going to have sort of a 
background and informational aspect to it. And then we're going 
to move on to an afternoon session, which is going to discuss 
some of the controversies and things that we don't understand so 
well about Chesapeake Bay. And then it's going to move into 
management issues, some of the things that we really need to do 
in terms of managing it better. And then finally ending up with 
a panel discussion, which includes a mix of scientists and 
managers. 

This is the Chesapeake Bay. I would like to point out 
several things that I think are very important as we go along 
today. 

The first thing is there are numerous tributaries and 
subtributaries, et cetera, on this Bay. It's a long Bay, 
there's a lot of shoreline on the Chesapeake Bay. And I point 
this out to you because it's in contrast to other estuaries that 
have been discussed in these NOAA Estuary-of-the-Month seminars. 

For example, compare Chesapeake Bay with Long Island Sound. 
Long Island Sound has a relatively straight shoreline and 
relatively few tributaries and relatively great flushing by the 
sea. 


So what we're dealing with in Chesapeake Bay is quite a 
different situation than what we might talk about in other estu 
aries. And I encourage people to think about the comparison of 
this estuary to those estuaries. There's a lot of shoreline, 
lots of places for people to impact these days. 


13 



And of course the non-point issue that Senator Mathias 
alluded to is particularly critical in such a configuration./ 

Another thing I want everybody to keep in mind is the fact 
that the Chesapeake Bay area is really burgeoning in popula¬ 
tion. While other areas of the country may not be growing at a 
great clip, this particular area really is. So with all that 
shoreline and all the potential for people to live on it and use 
the resources, there is potential for problems. 

As we move on to the resources issue, I want to make several 
points. We often talk about pollution and loss of habitat. We 
often talk about the depth of the Bay, and we paint very stark 
pictures. I want to divide the issue, if I can, into two 
things. It's not just a pollution issue. It's a resources 
management issue. It's fisheries statistics. It's fishery 
management. I think that these things don't often get enough 
attention. 

We're too willing to blame the other guy for his pollution, 
what he's added to the Bay, and not willing enough sometimes to 
look carefully at the stewardship of our fisheries resources. 

And I think you'll see in an excellent presentation later, a 
little bit more about that. 

I hope to see us address somewhat the role of science in 
management. This, I have a particular love and affection for. 

I think it's a very critical thing to be able to present science 
as well as possible to a wide variety of people and have scien¬ 
tists and management interact to produce the best possible 
plans. 

I must tell you quite frankly that many scientists in the 
Bay area feel somewhat disenfranchised by the present schedule 
of primarily management and political activities. And I hope 
that we can try in the future to have better involvement of the 
local scientists in the plans. 

So much for my propaganda. I'll get into some procedural 
things now. I'll ask the speakers to try to keep to twenty 
minutes if they can. That way we'll try to be on schedule. 

There are a few alterations to the program that I'll point 
out. Dr. Rothschild will be represented by Mr. Cluney Stagg. 
There will also be a movie added at noontime by the Maryland Sea 
Grant Program, the movie is "The Chesapeake, a Twilight Estu- 


14 


With that, I think it's time to move on and get into the 
program. I would like to introduce the first talk, which will 
be about the "History, Geology and Demographics of Chesapeake 
Bay." Our presenters are generally organized in pairs. We did 
this to try to get as wide a perspective as possible. People 
have been told not to just look at their own bailiwick. 

We have two excellent "authors," if you will, of the first 
presentation, someone who knows a great deal about the history 
of Chesapeake Bay and who has been here for 25 years doing 
research on the Chesapeake Bay. So I want to introduce, without 
further ado, Dr. Robert Biggs from the University of Delaware. 


15 


























CHESAPEAKE BAY, HISTORY, 
RESOURCES, AND POLLUTION 


17 
























































































































































































HISTORY. GEOLOGY. AND DEMOGRAPHICS 


by 

Dr. Robert B. Biggs, University of Delaware 
and 

Dr. Grace S. Brush, Johns Hopkins University 

Dr, Biggs: I would like to start with a simple declara¬ 
tive sentence to try to get your attention, that is, "The 
Chesapeake Bay is very small." 

The Chesapeake and its tributaries represent only 7 per¬ 
cent of the 64,000 square mile watershed that's illustrated in 
Figure 1. The principal watersheds are the Susquehanna Basin 
and the Potomac Basin. Smaller basins include the Rappahannock, 
York, and the James River Basins. 

The Chesapeake is small. Its average depth is only 8 
meters. The volume of water contained in the Chesapeake and its 
tributaries is fifteen cubic miles. That volume is so small 
that most of the physical processes that occur in the Chesapeake 
Bay, although not necessarily the most important ones, are a 
function of what happens on the continental shelf off the Mouth 
of the Bay. Except for a small area at river mouths where they 
discharge into the open waters of the Bay, the Chesapeake's ele¬ 
vations and major current structures are controlled by what 
happens on the continental shelf. 

From a regional geologic perspective the Chesapeake Bay lies 
in the Atlantic Coastal Plain and is bordered in the inland by a 
fall line where the Coastal Plain laps up against the peidmont. 

The Chesapeake is small. It's so small that if you look at 
a cross-section of the Chesapeake representing only the uncon¬ 
solidated sediments, you can't see the Chesapeake Bay in the 
cross-section. Its maximum depth of 175 feet doesn't even show 
in the thickness of a line. 

The Chesapeake is large. It has 18 trillion gallons of 
water in it. If you were to build a process plant to try to 
extract something from the water of the Chesapeake Bay and you 
shut off all the river systems so that all you had to do was 
pump out that 18 trillion gallons, you could pump a million 
gallons a day and it would take 15 years to empty the Chesa¬ 
peake. It's a very large body of water. 


19 




1. Susquehanna 

2. Eastern Shore 

3. West Chesapeake 

4. Patuxent 

5. Potomac 

6. Rappahannock 

7. York 

8. James 


The major drainage basins of 
the Chesapeake Bay system. 


Figure 1 


20 






The Chesapeake is large. It's 8,000 miles of shorelines 
would extend from the U.S.-Canadian border to the U.S.-Mexican 
border, along the Atlantic and Gulf coastline of the United 
States. 

Its 4,400 square miles of surface area makes it the largest 
estuary in the continental United States. 

The 450 miles long Susquehanna River is the largest fresh¬ 
water system to discharge on the east coast of the United States 
and the largest to discharge from Eastern North America into the 
Atlantic Ocean Basin except for the St. Lawrence. The Chesa¬ 
peake is a very large system. 

So whether it's large or small depends in part on the per¬ 
spective from which you view the system. I hope that you keep 
the perspective that in some cases it's a very large system and 
in other it's a very small system, but in all cases it's a very 
important system. 

The modern Chesapeake originated during the last rise in sea 
level, which probably began on the order of 12,000 or 13,000 
years ago. In Figure 2, we present a sea level rise curve for 
the Delmarva Peninsula. The data from which it was constructed 
are coastal areas on the Delmarva Peninsula are verified in the 
Chesapeake System by dates on peats which are found buried over 
wide geographic areas in the Chesapeake. Sea level was on the 
order of 20 meters below its present elevation approximately 
8,000 years ago, about the time that the proto Chesapeake Bay in 
its present geographic configuration was flooded by this rise in 
sea level. 

The Chesapeake has a remnant Pleistocene channel in it. 

This remnant Pleistocene channel, created when sea level was 
standing at some lower elevation than at the present time, 
generally follows the present deep channel of the Bay. At 
Annapolis the maximum depth of the Pleistocene channel is on the 
order of 200 feet below the present sea level while the mouth of 
the Rappahannock River is 140 feet. 

The present configuration of the Chesapeake represents only 
the latest design of the Bay. During as many as seven other sea 
level excursions during the last million years, other novel con¬ 
figurations of the Chesapeake Bay may have existed. For ex¬ 
ample, some evidence suggests that the Chesapeake used to exit 
from across Delmarva Peninsula in the vicinity of Chincoteague, 
Virginia. 

For our purposes today we're interested in part in people 
interactions with the Chesapeake. Rather than present a demo¬ 
graphic map which shows you where the people live in Chesapeake 


21 


Bay, we've chosen to illustrate where the people live in Chesa¬ 
peake Bay by showing the locations of the principal point sources 
which occur around the Bay (Figure 3). They occur as one would 
expect, in the vicinity of Baltimore, in the vicinity of Washing¬ 
ton, in the vicinity of Richmond, and in the vicinity of Norfolk. 

The population of 12.7 million people who live in the Chesa¬ 
peake drainage basin are concentrated in three or four major 
metropolitan areas. This suggests that if one is interested in 
controlling pollution from point sources, one has a reasonable 
ability to identify and control those point sources in the main 
because they represent a few relatively small areas. 

That's not to say the smaller sewage treatment plants on the 
Eastern Shore at other locations on the Bay, are not important in 
their local areas, but we can capture 70 percent of all point 
sources by controlling four major metropolitan areas in the 
Chesapeake. 

It's projected that the 12.7 million population in 1980 will 
reach 14.6 million population in the year 2000. It’s also 
projected that the population distribution will not be uniform 
across this area. In fact, most of the population increase will 
occur in the vicinity of the York River, which has no sewage 
treatment plants, relatively low population at the present time, 
and which is expected to grow 43 percent by the year 2000. 

The Rappahannock River Peninsula and its drainage basin is 
expected to grow 40 percent in the next 15 years, and the Patuxent 
River Basin is expected to grow 27 percent in the next 15 years. 

Land uses are illustrated in the pie diagrams (Figure 4). In 
1950, approximately half of the total drainage basin of the 
Chesapeake was in forest and hasn't changed dramatically in the 30 
years from 1950 to 1980. 

However, the amount of urban area has increased from 5 to 14 
percent in 30 years in the drainage basin, mostly at the expense of 
pasture land. Intensive urbanization, localized in specific areas, 
may be susceptible to controls and regulations because it is 
focused in relatively definable geographies. 

When John Smith sailed into the Mouth of the Chesapeake his 
logs indicate that the area, as one would expect, was essentially 
fully forested. It was forested with a full-growth climax forest. 
His crews described a layer of waist deep humus on the forest floor 
that overlaid the mineral soils. Half of it had been destroyed by 
1850 in the watershed of the Chesapeake. Destruction of this 
forest and its conversion to agricultural lands principally 
resulted in a dramatic increase in the rate of sedimentation in the 
Chesapeake (Table 1). 


22 


( 

A — 

YEARS B.P. (C 14 ) 

) 2000 4000 6000 8000 

u 

DEPTH 

HOLOCENE 

BELOW " 5 

\ SEA LEVEL RISE 

MEAN 

\ COASTAL DELAWARE 

SEA -10 - 
LEVEL 

\ (AFTER BELKNAP ANO KRAFT, 1977) 

(METERS) 

-15 - 

-20 - 

\ 


Figure 2. Sea level history on Delmarva 


Phosphorus 


Nitrogen 


Basin 

York 

Rappahannock 
Eastern Shore 

Patuxent 

West 

Chesapeake 

Potomac 

James 

Susquehanna 


Percent ot point 
source load trom 


industry 



Phosphorus 

Millions of pounds. March-October 


Basin 


Percent ot point 
source load trom 
Industry 


York 

Rappahannock 
Eastern Shore 

Patuxent 

West 

Chesapeake 

James 

Susquehanna 

Potomac 



56 

28 

20 

2 

21 

24 

5 

5 


Nitrogen 

Millions of pounds. March-October 


Legend: Type 



Industrial 


[Municipal 


Figure 3. Discharge of phosphorus and nitrogen from point sources under 
existing (1980) conditions and percentage of point source 
discharge from industrial point sources (from EPA, 1983). 


23 





































1950 


1980 




Land-use patterns in the 
Chesapeake Bay drainage 
basin, 1950 and 1980. 


24 











Table 1 


Summary of Sedimentation Rates 


Pre-settlement rates are based on carbon-14 dated sediment. 
Post-settlement rates are average rates calculated between a 
maximum of five pollen horizons. The pollen horizons represent 
historically documented changes in the regional vegetation and 
include initial land clearance, shift to intensive agriculture, 
beginning of the chestnut blight, demise of chestnut, and the 
beginning of large-scale urbanization. (Brush, unpublished). 


x n s 


Pre-European 

0.14 

9 

0.05 

Post-European 

0.30 

53 

0.19 

<20% Land Cleared 

Upstream 

0.15 

6 

0.20 

Midstream 

0.24 

5 

0.20 

Downstream 

1.17 

3 

0.06 

40-50% Land Cleared 

Upstream 

0.39 

15 

0.22 

Midstream 

0.37 

16 

0.19 

Downstream 

0.17 

8 

0.13 


25 



Pre-settlement sedimentation rates for the Chesapeake Bay, 
in the basin and its tributaries, were on the order of .14 centi 
meters per year. 

By the time 20 percent of the land had been cleared by agri¬ 
cultural activity, the rate of sedimentation had increased to as 
much as .24 centimeters (cm) per year. By the time half the 
land had been cleared, essentially by the time it reached its 
present status on the Chesapeake Bay, sedimentation rates in¬ 
creased to as much as .39 cm per year. These data are based on 
a relatively large number of samples in several of the major 
tributaries in the Chesapeake Bay. 

We know something of the historic attributes of the Ches¬ 
apeake. Part of the research that has been conducted over the 
last 5 or 6 years with special intensity in the Chesapeake has 
been related to an attempt to discern and decipher the history 
of what's happening in the Chesapeake Bay. We have no quantita¬ 
tive historical record of activities that have occurred and may 
have impacted a change in ecology of the Chesapeake. One ex¬ 
ample of the kind of information that can be derived from a 
sediment core is illustrated in Figures 5, 6, and 7. 

The City of Baltimore has discharged most of its treated sew 
age into a small sub-estuary of the Bay called Back River. An 
area immediately adjacent to Back River has essentially the same 
circulation and receives nothing but recreational or a very mod¬ 
erate level of sewage input. That area is called Middle River. 
An analysis of a sediment core (Figure 5) for the Middle River 
and the Back River as a function of time from 1780 to 1980 
showed the clear change in sediment degradation products, 
perhaps associated with eutrophication, associated with the 
input of nutrient-laden waters into Back River. 

Sediments can provide us with evidence of what changes have 
occurred in systems. In Figure 6, we show two cores located in 
Chesapeake Bay, one north of Annapolis and one in the vicinity 
of the mouth of the Patuxent River, illustrating the concentra¬ 
tion of zinc in the core sediments as a function of time. This 
example is merely to show that from 1780 to 1980 concentrations 
of zinc reached some sort of a maximum at about 1940. The rise 
of zinc and other metals begins around 1880, which may be an 
indication of the initiation of industrial activities and other 
workings affecting the Bay. 

The fact that this pattern is observed in areas far removed 
down the Bay suggests that the transport of potentially toxic 
materials may in fact be relatively widespread in the Chesa¬ 
peake. 


26 


7.0 


6.0 


a: 

< 

UJ 

>- 


5.0 


o> 

>» 

k_ 

*o 

E 

O' 

N 

CL 

Q 

O 

CO 

CO 


4.0 


3.0 


2.0 


1.0 


BACK RIVER 
MIDDLE RIVER 


i 




_L 



1780 


1800 1820 1840 I860 1880 1900 

TIME IN YEARS 


1920 


1940 


I960 


1980 


Figure 5 


Comparison of sedimentary chlorophyll degradation products 
in Back and Middle Rivers (from Brush unpublished). 



Figure 6. Zinc concentrations in dated cores from Chesapeake Bay 
(from EPA, 1983). 


27 
















We offer the following history of the Chesapeake (Figure 
7). The Chesapeake was discovered in 1607, Across the bottom 
of the illustration are depicted historic events or times to 
provide a reference point. 

The population of the northern Chesapeake Bay area at the 
time of the colonists arrival was on the order of 100,000 in the 
entire watershed. 

Just prior to the Revolutionary War, there was a significant 
population upheaval in the Chesapeake watershed. That popula¬ 
tion grew rapidly until about 1880 or 1890 when it became 
stable. After World War II, the population increased dramati¬ 
cally again. The projection is that it will continue to 
increase rather dramatically. 

Subsistance agriculture, lumbering, tobacco farming, and 
eventually agribusiness resulted in the improvement of fully 50 
percent of the Chesapeake watershed by 1850. Since that time, 
fields have been going back to forests or have been converted to 
urban or residential areas. Sedimentation rates and metal loads 
are also depicted and have been described earlier. 

When was the first Bay-wide synoptic nutrient cruise ever 
conducted? The first Bay-wide historical nutrient cruise that 
attempted to cover the entire Chesapeake Bay and the major tribu¬ 
taries was conducted by the Chesapeake Bay Institute, Johns 
Hopkins University, in 1963. Note that by 1963, the metal loads 
appear to have already been declining. 

Agricultural activity had peaked a hundred years prior to 
that? the population was almost what it is today; and metal 
loads had already started to decline. From a direct historical 
perspective from a day on Chesapeake perspective, it's difficult 
to look back at existing data and try to understand what changes 
have occurred to date. 

Whether by geochemical or paleontological methods, we think 
that the stratigraphy of selected cores from the Chesapeake Bay 
can be used to determine what's happened to the system as the 
population of diatoms versus dinoflagellates changes 
dramatically; as the contribution of organic matter to the 
system changes dramatically? as periods of persistent anoxia 
seem to occur; do any of these have precedence in the past or 
are they unprecedented? 

Perhaps by understanding the stratigraphy of some of these 
cores, whether geochemically or paleontologically, we can get a 
feeling for how the Chesapeake has changed in response to 
natural and anthropogenic influences that have occurred there. 


28 


Population 

(millions) 


Improved 
Land. (%) 


Pollen 

(oak/rogweecJ) 


Sedimentation 

Rale 

(cm/yt) 

Metal Load 

(codmium p.p m ) 


8 


8 

x: 

D 

O 


8 



> 

o 



o 

p 



8 


If 

> D 

5 z 


o 

co 


i V 11 t t 




SAVS 


Didtoms 


Woterweed. pondweed 
wild celery obudnont 


W,' 


Epiphytes and cleor water forms 

- , .. -- 


Woterweed. pondweed 
sporadic, celery abundant 




IX: 


Wild celery, few others 


x 


Decrease in all species 


Wild celery. All SAV 

pondweed Milfoil gone 

>OG 

Eutrophic 

Decreased epiphytes & Planktonic 

Increased eutrophic forms /\ forms 

dominant 



20.000 
10.000 

Fishery 

Landings 0 

(x 10 3 lbs) 600 000 
300.000 
0 

Figure 7, EPA, 1983 

TIME HISTORY OF NORTHERN CHESAPEAKE BAY, 1600 TO 1980. An important aspect of understanding how Chesapeake Bay will respond 
to pollution is lo examine the Bay's past. In the northern Bay. human activity, beginning at the top of the chart with population growth, 
has been changing water quality since the time line began (see Appendix A for further discussion). 



29 

























































Another major area that I think needs work from the geo¬ 
logical, sedimentological, and toxicological perspective is that 
we must develop a series of models of suspended sediment 
movement linked to a two-dimensional or three-dimensional model 
of the Chesapeake, We must put suspended sediments in those 
models because toxic materials that enter the Chesapeake Bay 
seem to cling to and have an affinity for suspended sediments. 
Where the sediments go, so go most of the toxic materials. 

Perhaps, we're going to go to no-till agriculture in the 
Basin because it's an economic imperative. When we go to no¬ 
till agriculture, if we reduce the suspended sediment input to 
the Chesapeake Bay, we'll increase the light that's available to 
the Bay. Some would say that given the nutrient concentrations 
that we have at the present time, light is the limiting factor 
that controls primary production in the Bay. How long will it 
take the effects of no-till agriculture to increase water 
clarity? Where will it be achieved first? How will these 
interact with the nutrients of the Bay? 

These are some problems that we think are of critical im¬ 
portance from the perspective of geology and sedimentology that 
need to be addressed in the Chesapeake. 

Thank you. 


30 


REFERENCES 


Belknap, D.F. and J.C. Kraft, 1977. Holocene Relative Sea-Level 
Changes on the Northwest Flank of the Baltimore Canyon 
Geosyncline. Jour. Sed. Petrology 47(2), 610-629. 

U.S.E.P.A., 1983. Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of Environmental 
Change. U.S.E.P.A. Region III, Phila., PA, 199 p. 

U.S.E.P.A., 1983. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action. 
U.S.E.P.A. Region III, Phila., PA, 185 p. 


31 















































CLIMATE AND CIRCULATION 


by 

Dr. William C. Boicourt 
Horn Point Environmental Laboratories 

Dr. Boicourt: I'm to address the climate and circulation 
of the Chesapeake Bay. Given the brief time, I'd like to 
consider climate in a narrow sense — the interannual 
variability. In order to cover the other aspects of climate, I 
am going to take a certain amount of professorial license and 
assign reading in the 1941 Yearbook of Agriculture entitled 
"Climate and Man." 

I want to quickly convey how the Chesapeake Bay moves, how 
we're doing as scientists in providing a description of the 
Chesapeake Bay circulation, and how we can use this under¬ 
standing to try to reduce the uncertainty in assessing the 
long-term trends in the health of Chesapeake Bay. 

The Chesapeake Bay is the archetypical estuary for physical 
oceanographers. It dominates the physical oceanographic litera¬ 
ture to the point where my colleagues in Europe bridle at the 
fact that they have to either come here and work on the Bay or 
at least compare their small, unimportant estuaries to the circu 
lation of Chesapeake Bay. To be fair, some of my colleagues 
from across the water have come to the Bay and have done rather 
well in providing new insight into estuarine circulation. 

For a description of the circulation (which most of you know 
well), we describe a simple experiment: 

Here we have a basin. On the left-hand side is freshwater, 
on the right-side is saltwater, and there is a partition separat 
ing the two. To put this experiment in perspective, I should 
explain that even physical oceanographers perform it. I used to 
consort with a bunch of decidely elitist oceanographers who 
described themselves as geophysical fluid dynamicists at an 
institution up in Massachusetts that goes down to the bottom of 
the ocean to find Titanics. They conducted this experiment in a 
rather different manner — the basin was a gin bottle and the 
two fluids were ethanol and paint thinner. The results are 
basically the same, and provide more insight than you might 
expect at first. Your intuition says that saltwater is heavier 
than freshwater. 


33 



What happens when you pull the partition between the two 
fluids? I'll ask you this on the same exam after the reading 
assignment, but I'll give you a hint. The heavier saltwater 
flows under the freshwater, and the freshwater flows over the 
saltwater. This process continues to the point where there is 
an equilibrium. Thereafter, this picture stands until molecular 
diffusion removes the salinity difference between the two. That 
is a very, very slow process. This picture here resembles what 
we describe as a salt-wedge estuary, which the Chesapeake is 
not. The amount of freshwater flowing towards the sea over the 
saltwater flowing towards the head of the estuary is not much 
greater than the total freshwater moving in. 

The Chesapeake Bay, if you took a typical cross-sectional 
area in the mid-section of the Bay, maybe a 100,000 square 
meters, and tried to move the Susquehanna through that you get 1 
centimeter per second average velocity across the crosssection. 
And that is about a kilometer a day, seemingly not very strong. 

Then we go out to our current meters in the estuary and find 
indeed that the estuary has mean velocities 10 times the amount 
or even 25 times that amount. What drives this robust 
circulation? 

This is a picture of what's called a partially mixed estuary 
by Pritchard's definition. We see freshwater moving toward the 
mouth of the estuary and saltwater penetrating in along the bot¬ 
tom. The Chesapeake Bay is the foremost example of this type of 
estuary. During the process of moving toward the mouth of the 
estuary, the freshwater mixes with the lower water reducing its 
freshwater component, and getting saltier and saltier as it 
moves to the sea. Likewise, the ocean water moving toward the 
head of the estuary gets fresher and fresher to the point where 
it reduces its saltwater component. 

The critical driving element in the Chesapeake Bay circula¬ 
tion is this mixing process, which we traditionally think of as 
the turbulence generated by the sloshing back and forth of the 
tidal currents over the bottom of the Bay. This picture has 
been modified somewhat lately, but mixing remains the crucial 
determinant of Bay circulation. 

Well, we've known this circulatory picture for 30 years. 
What's new? And how did we get there? 

We got there in the last 20 years by an increasing use of 
moored instrumentation. If you picked up the description of 
NOAA's circulatory survey, you will see described that they've 
conducted a large set of mooring operations over the Bay. For 
example, 61 current meters were placed on 23 moorings in June 
1980 under EPA sponsorship. 


34 


The ability to cover the shorter term variability over a 
longer time with the instrumentation has provided a lot of 
insight. Large scale arrays are possible when groups get 
together, such as the cooperation between NOAA and ourselves at 
the Chesapeake Bay Institute. At that time, NOAA maintained 
four long-term moorings at the southern end of the Bay while we 
maintained three in the upper end of the Bay, There was an 
overlap of about a year-and-a-half and we learned quite a bit 
from that long-term measurement series. 

What have we learned? 

I'll be rather short and broad in view as some of these 
circulation studies encompass very many researchers even those 
from across the water. They are listed here in a crude chrono¬ 
logical order. Clearly there's been numerical modeling forever, 
but recently this has come to fruition in some very interesting 
models that a lot of researchers are finding very helpful. 

Meteorologically Forced Circulation: Just to remind our¬ 
selves as physical oceanographers that we discovered that the 
wind can move the water. We've always said, those of us who are 
old, that we clearly understood this from first principles, but 
we've been reminded by the new wave that the "wind driving has 
been neglected." There is some support for both positions, but 
the work done by Alan Elliot, Dong-Ping Wang, and the work done 
by Professor Pritchard and his students, specifically Grano, 
Vieira, and Goodrich has revealed fascinating details of the 
process. 

There's some truth on either side. But the work done by 
Alan Elliot and Dong-Ping Wang on the Potomac River and the work 
done by Don Pritchard and his students Grano, Vieira, and Dave 
Goodrich has shown what some of these circulations can do. A 
quick qualitative picture of what happens in the estuary: We 
have a simple Chesapeake Bay here. We took away the Potomac 
River and all the tributaries and the Susquehanna and treated it 
as simply a basin. I guess I can't assume that people are so un¬ 
couth as to blow on their soup. But I have in the interest of 
this experiment. When you blow on the soup, the water (soup) in 
the far end of the bowl sets up a little higher than the soup in 
the near end of the bowl. And if you blow too hard? 

But the primary consequence of the winds is a drop in the 
water level in the north end of the Bay. That's a common ex¬ 
perience. When there's a strong northwesterly, we get extremely 
low tides. Water is forced out of the Bay, and a classical two- 
layer circulation is set up, with strong flow to the south in 
the surface layers and a delayed up-estuary flow in the lower 
layers. 


35 


We have learned that the cross-estuary tilt of the pycno- 
cline resulting from the rotation of the earth can be upset by 
the wind. A cross-sectional view looking up the Chesapeake Bay 
at Mid-Bay shows a higher salinity water along the eastern 
shore. A cross estuary wind can not only reverse this slope, 
but also drive upwelling along the side. 

Mixing: The crux of the ocean circulation problem has for a 

long time been with the small-scale motions of the ocean we call 
turbulence and which causes mixing. We don't understand it very 
well, but we try hard, for the rewards are a more accurate de¬ 
scription of the larger scale circulation processes. Mixing pro¬ 
cesses in the estuary were traditionally thought to be moving 
back and forth over the bottom with the tidal currents. We see 
it as a balance between the horizontal motions tending to pro¬ 
duce what's called buoyancy flux versus the act of vertical mo¬ 
tions to destroy that stratification. 

If we apply bottom-generated turbulence and turbulence 
generated by the wind at the surface to the salinity versus the 
depth profile, then this smooth increase in salt with depth 
would change. Classical entrainment theory would predict that 
this smooth change would become abrupt. It turns out that the 
Bay looks more like the smooth profile, even with winds stirring 
the upper layers. We are forced therefore to examine the mixing 
processes in more detail. Internal waves and shear instability 
mechanisms are throught to be important here, but the precise 
mechanisms are still unknown. 

I list in Table 1 a category called "topographically induced 
circulation" that comprises many flow processes. If you are a 
kayaker or canoeist or a stream fisherman, you would laugh at 
what we consider discoveries in this area — superimposed on the 
steady flow of the estuary are many eddies and jets and regions 
of high and low currents. This LANDSAT satellite image shows 
the dendritic nature of the Chesapeake Bay's geometry. The 
channel curvature and the complex side boundaries generate many 
local flow features that influence the transport of water and 
waterborne materials in the estuary. An intense array of 
instruments such as this one deployed in the Potomac River is 
necessary to examine such flow features. With this array we 
revealed small-scale jets, eddies, and both coupled and 
independent flows in the upper and lower layers. 

Tributary — main stem interaction: This area of research 
is of particular interest at the moment. We are finding that 


36 


Table 1 

ACTIVE RESEARCH 


Estuarine Circulation 

o Meteorological Circulation 
o Tributary - Main Stem Interactions 
o Topographically Induced Circulation 
o Mixing 

- Wind 

- Boundary 

- Internal 


37 




LANDSAT SCENE COURTESY OF NASA 


38 

















each tributary has something to reveal concerning the transport 
of water and salt in an estuary. An especially interesting tri¬ 
butary is the Patapsco River — Baltimore Harbor System, where a 
remarkable three-layer circulation was discovered. The Patapsco 
River cannot provide sufficient flow to drive a classical two- 
layer circulation. The fresher upper layers of the main stem of 
the Chesapeake Bay therefore move into the Harbor, mixing as 
they go with the saltier waters below. The salty lower layers 
of the Bay also move into the Harbor along the dredged shipping 
channel. What happens when these two currents move in? There 
has to be an outflow and it occurs at mid-depth. This has been 
inferred by Pritchard and Carpenter many years ago and until 
recently hasn't had a direct measurement. 

Here are flow measurements revealing the three-layer struc¬ 
ture. Six current meters are employed to resolve the remarkably 
small scales of this profile. 

Bob Biggs mentioned the importance of the continental 
shelf. Until told that we ought to pay attention to the sea 
level at the continental shelf, we were always ignoring that and 
treating the continental shelf as a large reservoir and source 
of high salinity water. But now we've become very interested in 
the source waters on the continental shelf realizing that the 
continental shelf sea level can drive motions in the estuary, 
especially very low freguency. 

We've also studied where the Chesapeake Bay water goes when 
it exits the continental shelf. At times it moves all the way 
to Cape Hatteras during high outflow and to the Gulf Stream. 

I mentioned numerical modeling. Dr. Shenn-Yu Chao at the 
University of Maryland is developing a computer model, a mathe¬ 
matical description, of the circulation of the Bay and the inner 
continental shelf. Of interest is the outflow from the Bay, 
which can move rapidly down the coast toward Cape Hatteras, and 
ultimately, become entrained in the Gulf Stream. This is the 
upper layer model predictions. In spite of the simplistic geo¬ 
metry, the picture is a remarkably accurate description of the 
Chesapeake Bay outflow plume, as observed recently in our micro¬ 
bial exchanges coupling in coastal Atlantic systems experiments. 
The flow of water into the Chesapeake Bay in the lower layer in¬ 
tensifies along the coast off Virginia Beach. 

Modeling is especially helpful in the attempt to assess 
long-term trends. Bob Biggs referred to the lack of long-term 
data sets on the Chesapeake Bay. The EPA Chesapeake Bay Program 
could only develop a 30-year record on dissolved oxygen of the 
Bay. Such a record length is uncomfortably short to assess 


39 


trends or help guide costly management decisions. One role the 
numerical model can play is to reduce the complexity and uncer¬ 
tainty resulting from the lack of long-term data sets. If we 
can develop an accurate model of the Bay's behavior during inter¬ 
vals when we have an adequate set of observations, then we can 
use this model to predict the Bay's response to the driving 
forces for intervals which are not well covered by observations. 

Long-term records and modeling are the only avenues toward 
understanding of the interannual variability of a natural 
system. This interannual variability must be addressed in order 
to be able to normalize the records from the estuary to detect 
changes that are the result of man's influences. In the case of 
dissolved oxygen, for instance, we must be able to separate the 
fluctuations due to variations in river flow (and hence, strati¬ 
fication) and increases in nutrient loadings on the Chesapeake 
Bay. 


I would like to endorse what has been a traditional role 
played by government agencies in the realm of long-term measure¬ 
ments. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and 
the U.S. Geological Survey have historically provided long-term 
observations of such variables as river flow, sea level, and 
meteorological forcing, upon which we depend greatly for insight 
into the processes of the Chesapeake Bay. Given the precedent 
and the tradition, I would like to encourage these agencies to 
initiate new long-term observations in estuaries. Moreover, the 
recent move to provide real-time or near real-time sea level and 
flow information should be commended. The Federal agencies have 
the experience and the means to provide the oversight and conti¬ 
nuity that long-term data sets require. 

Thank you. 


40 


RESOURCES AND ECONOMICS 


by 

Dr. Herbert M. Austin 
Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences 


Dr. Austin: This is one of those papers that has a single 
author from one Chesapeake Bay state, the State of Virginia, but 
I want to reassure my friends from the north that I have talked 
to people in the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 
in preparing my talk. 

Inevitably, when we speak of the Chesapeake Bay the conver¬ 
sation turns to the resources, their issues, status, and manage¬ 
ment. More than we, they're the inhabitants of the Bay and 
we're the stewards. We must consider their needs above our own. 

The Issues 


Despite our earlier State, Federal, and Congressional ef¬ 
forts, it wasn't until the EPA Bay Report was released in 1983 
that there was a focused concern, and a public awareness of the 
Bay and its problems. These efforts in the winter of 1983, 
culminated with the Governors' Conference. The 1984 General 
Assemblies of the Bay States had a clear mandate of the need for 
political and legislative reforms and the resources needed to 
fulfill them. 

Fisheries resource management has probably made more pro¬ 
gress in the last 2 years than we have in the last 2 decades. 

In spite of the mandates, reforms, initiatives, and policy 
statements, biological cycles in the Bay occur more slowly than 
political cycles, and the public is impatient. We're trying to 
rectify more than 50 to a 100 years of neglect, and activities 
in the area of resource management are under scrutiny, and 
unresolved issues still await asking. 

What are the resources? I shall address several; each as a 
fishery. By definition, a fishery is the resource and the 
harvester. We can't separate them. 

The recreational component ranges from the child on the dock 
to the more sophisticated, high-speed boats capable of blue 
water fishing. Both the child on the dock and the sophisticated 
fisherman are interested in striped bass, bluefish, weakfish, 
spot, croaker, and flounder. 

The commercial fishery ranges from a single man in a small 
boat on a tributary or creek to the pound net on major tributar¬ 
ies of the Bay to the multi-million dollar menhaden fishery. 


41 




Conflicts among users remains an issue — not one that 
impacts stock size so much, but one that pits otherwise allies, 
one against the other. These include the recreational versus 
the commercial fisheries for a given species, with the striped 
bass as probably the best example. There is the new versus 
traditional technology, for example: the "high roller" gill 
netters that appeared in Virginia 4 years ago pitted against the 
more traditional gill nets used; or the hydraulic escalator 
dredge, which operates seven times more efficiently in the 
removal of hard clams, than the more traditional patent tongs. 

Competition for space between the menhaden purse seine, crab 
pot, and the recreational fisherman's hook is a problem when 
each may try to occupy the same place at the same time. 

These user conflicts, however, are socioeconomic problems 
more than they are biological issues. It is not my intent today 
to carry out a scientific discourse dealing with the spawning 
habits, the feeding habits, the growth rates, or the population 
dynamics of the various species. 

I find that as I talk to the public, those interested in the 
Bay, their understanding of the resource population dynamics has 
improved dramatically in recent years, and that the informed 
public often ask very informed questions, and as a scientist 
they're sometimes difficult questions to answer. 

However, part of this deals with the status of the stocks, 
so I feel I have to make a few comments. A fishery stock is 
kind of like a money market account. If you have 10,000 dollars 
in principal, you should not spend it. You should only spend 
what you make in interest. 

A fishery stock works this way. Unfortunately, recruitment 
fluctuates from year-to-year just as the interest rate does. 
Fishermen get used to harvesting at a certain level. Then, when 
the recruitment rate drops below the harvest rate, we begin 
spending our "principal." In many cases this has happened to 
stocks in the Chesapeake Bay. Regardless of why the "interest 
rate" dropped, whether it was a change in climate, or a change 
in water quality, or overharvesting, that is, "overspending the 
principal." 

Status of the Stocks 


The striped bass seems to be a cause celebre in the 
Chesapeake Bay these days. Somehow its problems seem to be the 
epitome of the status of the Bay itself. The stock does seem 


42 




to have bottomed out, and I think that there are indications 
that it has begun to recover. We are seeing a larger, 
average-size striped bass, rockfish, in the Bay, which suggests 
that the minimum size limits are being effective. 

In Virginia, we've seen a rather significant increase in our 
recruitment index over the last five years. If you look at 
Maryland waters, however, you find that their riverine systems 
of the Chesapeake Bay show average or below average recruitment. 

Moreover, when we move to the Upper Bay, the Susquehanna 
Flats, which traditionally carry the entire Chesapeake Bay 
stock, we find there is an almost total recruitment failure. I 
think we should change our focus and take a closer look at 
what's happening at the Head of the Bay on the Susquehanna 
Flats, and perhaps, ask our Pennsylvania neighbors to assist us 
in this closer examination. 

We see limited recovery of shad and river herring stocks in 
Virginia. The situation remains static in Maryland. I could 
tell you that we've seen a 100 percent increase in the shad run 
this year, which wouldn't mean a whole lot when you know that 
landings actually rose from 200 to 500 metric tons. 

Generally, the other stocks such as weakfish, spot, croaker, 
and flounder tend to fluctuate primarily due to the impacts of 
climatic events. We have not documented the impacts on these 
stocks that we can relate to pollution. Overharvesting is 
probably the greatest cause of a stock decline once the fish 
pass a normal cyclic peak. On the other hand, some stocks of 
these if they weren't fished at all, would decline, naturally. 

While the Bay blue crab stock "appears*' to be stable, there 
has been such an increase in fishing effort over the last few 
years that in all likelihood the catch-per-unit effort through¬ 
out the Chesapeake Bay has been reduced. Commercial catch data 
(our index of stock size) show an increase, but reduced catch- 
per-unit of effort suggest an actual stock decline. 

The oyster harvest is down in both States. Recruitment is 
down. Efforts are being made, significant in Virginia, to 
examine why there has been a decline in recruitment and see 
whether corrective measures can be followed. 

I want to close with a few comments on a new effort that has 
been initiated. This is the Federal/State/Chesapeake Bay Stock 
Assessment Committee. Thanks to Senator Mathias and support 
from other Senators from Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, 
NOAA has received a million-and-a half dollars for Bay-wide 
stock assessment activities. 


43 


This cooperative Committee includes membership from the NOAA 
Estuarine Programs Office, Northeast Fisheries Center of the 
National Marine Fisheries Service, the Maryland DNR, Virginia 
Marine Resources Commission, Virginia Institute of Marine 
Sciences, and representatives from academia in Pennsylvania, 
Maryland, and Virginia. 

The EPA Bay study made a policy decision when it started its 
five-year study, that was not to examine fisheries, but to look 
at problems of water quality, submerged aquatic vegetation, and 
toxics in the water. This was okay, except that toward the end 
of the study it seemed that every time the telephone rang it was 
somebody from the EPA study wanting some fishery data so that 
they could relate fisheries to trends in water quality. These 
types of data were simply not available at that time in the 
right format to provide to people in other disciplines. 

The data that we did have has been collected sporadically 
over the years, and even for those studies that have 25 or 30 
years worth of data, nobody had ever attempted to look at these 
data in entirety. The major effort of the Chesapeake Bay Stock 
Assessment Committee this year will be to get these data sets 
into a format that water quality scientists and other fishery 
scientists can look at and use when trying to determine the 
trends and also to see how they relate to each other. 

In addition, after the initial efforts where the long-term 
data bases are examined, the Committee plans to move into 
assuming continued funding of an area looking at biological 
effects where the problems that are addressed in the EPA report 
and the problems that are being observed today in the fisheries 
and stocks are actually examined for cause and effect. 

Significant progress has been made but knowledge is kind of 
like fish, it doesn't keep very well. We need to continue our 
efforts. Thank you. 

Dr. D'Elia: We have time for one quick question. 

[No response]. 

Dr. D'Elia: Thank you very much. 

Next we're going to have a joint presentation. I've been 
promised by each of the speakers that they will each hold to 10 
minutes. They are going to talk about toxic pollution. Dr. 
Robert J. Huggett from VIMS and Dr. James G. Sanders from the 
Academy of Natural Sciences. Dr. Huggett will lead off. 


44 


TOXIC POLLUTION: ORGANIC POLLUTANTS 


by 

Dr. Robert J. Huggett 
Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences 


Dr. Huggett: Thank you, Chris. 

The presentation on toxic pollution will be divided. I will 
talk about the organic pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay, and my 
colleague will talk about inorganics. I will, as will he, 
mention some of the biological impacts resulting from toxics 
that we do know about at this point in time. 

By far, the most abundant organic pollutants in the Chesa¬ 
peake Bay are members of a group of compounds called polynuclear 
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). They are produced by automobiles, 
our home furnaces, and almost any combustion process which uses 
carbonaceous fuels. Some of them are known to be mammalian 
carcinogens, teratogens, and mutagens. And some of them have 
the same effect on fish. 

The concentration of the PAHs in the Bay's bottom sediments 
are greatest near the river mouths in the Southern Bay. In the 
Upper Bay the concentrations tend to increase from the Potomac 
River mouth north to Baltimore Harbor. There is then a decrease 
with another relatively high concentration near the Chesapeake 
and Delaware Canal. At the time of our first sampling (spring 
of 1979), the mouth of the Susguehanna contained low levels of 
PAHs. In the fall of 1979, the Susguehanna had much higher con¬ 
centrations. The first set of samples was taken when the river 
flow was very high. Apparently, everything coming down was 
being flushed out of this area and down into the Bay. Prior to 
and during the fall sampling, there was almost no flow, and what 
was coming over the Connowingo Dam was deposited near the mouth. 

One can pick an individual compound, benzopyrene, perhaps 
the most famous of the PAHs suite, and get the same distribution. 
Basically higher concentrations are near the mouths of our rivers 
and concentrations build up in the Upper Bay. The reason for this 
buildup is likely due to the fact that the sediments in the Upper 
Bay are more fine grained than they are in the Southern Bay. In 
the Upper Bay, there are more silts and clays. Also, there's a 
higher human population in this area. As I mentioned earlier, 
major sources for these PAHs are smokestacks and automobiles. The 
materials enter the atmosphere and are subject to windborne trans¬ 
port. We believe a reason for the higher concentration in the 
Upper Bay is that the contaminated clouds, if you will, come over 
the Bay and the PAHs are rained down. 


45 



We have detected hundreds of individual PAH in the Bay|s 
sediments. If they are having an impact on the biota, it is 
likely not to be from just one, but from some combination of 
them. I think that it is a real challenge for scientists to try 
to figure out what's going on. 

One can pick any of the hundreds of PAHs that we have de¬ 
tected in Baltimore Harbor and it will show trends in concen¬ 
tration. It looks as if there may be point sources. We went to 
some of the industrial outfalls in the area, collected, and 
analyzed sediment samples. The concentrations found obviously 
indicate that there are point sources. There is windborne 
transport, but in the highly urbanized, industrialized areas 
there are, as well, industrial and municipal inputs. 

If we were to examine the same compound in Elizabeth River, 
Virginia, we would likely see even higher concentrations. Per¬ 
haps, the Elizabeth River contains the highest concentration of 
PAHs of any estuary in the world — 200 parts per million of ben- 
zo(a)pyrene at approximately 1 foot of depth. The reason is 
creosote. Since the turn of the century there were four or five 
industries on the river that treated telephone poles, railroad 
ties and pilings with creosote, which is a mixture of these 
PAHs. It was used as a pesticide to keep out worms and fungi. 
They spilled it and it seeped into the river. Today, the 
sediments have the historical record. In cores of bottom 
sediments one can see the black inclusions that are basically 
pure creosote. 

If you take these sediments and put them in a tank of 
flowing water and put fish in the tank, after a week you start 
to see fin erosion. In controls with clean sediment, none of 
these effects are seen. Other effects include skin lesions 
after about 2-1/2 to 3 weeks. In some cases the lesions 
penetrate the stomach cavity. Fish collected in the field (i.e, 
Elizabeth River) showed many of the same effects as those 
investigated in the tank laboratory experiments. Perhaps most 
strikingly of all in a highly contaminated area of this one 
river, the Elizabeth, almost 100 percent of the trout and 
croaker over 8 inches in length are blind with cataracts. Some 
of these compounds (PAHs), by the way, cause cataracts in 
mammals as well. 

Some animals have the ability to metabolize compounds such 
as the PAHs. They are trying to get rid of them by making them 
more polar so they exit the body more easily. But in the 
process, they may make them more toxic. It's not the parent 
compound that does the damage in many cases but the metabolite. 

This is a very exciting field of research. I personally 
believe that by going out as chemists and just analyzing a few 


46 


samples of sediment or water, we are not going to learn very 
much. And by the same token, I feel that if biologists just 
perform classical bioassays and the like, while important, they 
are not going to get the total picture either. I believe we 
have to combine our efforts and start to utilize some of the 
technologies that researchers in medical schools have used for 
years, e.g., immunology, embryology, enzyme kinetics, and every¬ 
thing else to try to get a better understanding. 

In closing, I'd like to say that I think the resources in 
the Chesapeake Bay are in pretty good shape. It looks like, or 
the signs are, that some of the levels of some of the PAHs may 
be increasing in the Bay. We know they can be harmful. We have 
problem areas in the Elizabeth River and Baltimore Harbor; some 
of the other smaller tributaries are highly impacted with 
waste. In general, we're in pretty good shape. I hope that we 
have caught this problem of chemical pollutants in time. With 
that I would like to turn the program over to my colleague. 


47 



















































TOXIC POLLUTANTS 


by 

Dr. James G. Sanders 
Academy of Natural Sciences 

Dr. Sanders: Thank you. Bob. I, too, will be brief. 

Because of time limitations, I can only begin to identify the 
problems that we have with inorganic compounds. Therefore, I will 
focus only on metals and metal loadings. In the next 10 minutes 
I'd like to present three different points: 

1. Anthropogenic inputs of toxic trace metals to the Chesa¬ 
peake Bay equal, and in some cases exceed, natural in¬ 
puts . 

2. A substantial fraction of many of these metals become 
associated with the Bay's sediments, thereby remaining 
and accumulating within the main stem of the Chesapeake 
Bay. 

3. The cause-and-effect relationships between elevated 
metal levels and organism toxicity have not been well 
established. However, there are strong indications that 
sub-lethal impacts currently occur. 

Anthropogenic and Natural Inputs 

Trace metal loadings to rivers are a mixture of both natural 
weathering of rocks and soils plus some man-derived inputs. An 
examination of the major tributaries in the Chesapeake Bay made 
during the Chesapeake Bay Program and comparison with studies 
from the early 1960s have shown that loadings have not changed 
significantly between the mid-1960s and today. 

Indeed, if we compare the metal loadings that we see in the 
major tributaries to what we might call worldwide, "average" 
uncontaminated river water, we see that they compare rather well 
(Table 1). However, the rivers themselves are not the only 
source of toxic metals in the Bay. There are several other 
significant sources. Table 2, which was taken directly from the 
Chesapeake Bay Program's technical synthesis, indicates that 
large quantities of cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, and zinc 
are entering in industrial and waste water effluents and in 
atmospheric emissions. These inputs are approximately equal to 
inputs from rivers (Table 2). 


49 




TABLE 1 


METAL 

CHESAPEAKE 

BAY 

TRIBUTARIES 

"AVERAGE 
RIVER 
WATER 

IRON 

3,250 

3,000 

COPPER 

517 

410 

ZINC 

1,444 

3,000 

CHROMIUM 

551 

380 

LEAD 

307 

310 


ESTIMATED ANNUAL LOADINGS OF FIVE TRACE METALS TO 
CHESAPEAKE BAY FROM ITS MAJOR TRIBUTARIES (IN M 
TONS) IN COMPARISON WITH PREDICTED LOADINGS IN THE 
SAME QUANTITY OF WORLD-WIDE, "AVERAGE" RIVER WATER. 


50 





TABLE 2 


SOURCE 

CD 

CR 

CU 

PB 

ZN 

INDUSTRY 

178 

200 

190 

155 

167 

MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER 

6 

200 

99 

68 

284 

ATMOSPHERIC 

3 

- 

28 

34 

825 

URBAN RUNOFF 

7 

10 

9 

111 

63 

RIVERS 

75 

551 

517 

307 

1,444 

SHORE EROSION 

1 

83 

29 

28 

96 


LOADINGS OF METALS FROM THE MAJOR SOURCES AND PATHWAYS TO 
CHESAPEAKE BAY (VALUES IN M TONS/YEAR? TAKEN FROM THE 
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM'S TECHNICAL SYNTHESIS). 


51 



For example, 19 percent of chromium loadings to the Bay 
comes from industrial sources; an additional 19 percent is enter 
ing the Bay in waste water, a loading approximately equal to the 
loading from rivers. For some metals, in particular cadmium, 
the amount of anthropogenic input greatly exceeds natural river 
loadings. 

In addition to these averaged loadings for the entire Chesa¬ 
peake Bay, single estuaries may be heavily impacted. As an exam 
pie, copper enters the Patuxent River estuary primarily from 
four different sources; all four sources are approximately equal 
in magnitude (Table 3). The first source is natural weathering 
of rocks and soils; the second source is copper contained in 
sewage effluents; the third source is copper contained in 
cooling water effluent from a conventional power plant; the 
fourth source is copper leaching from bottom paints on 
recreational vessels. For this one sub-estuary, therefore, the 
inputs of copper from anthropogenic sources far exceed natural 
loadings. 

Association with Sediments 


Most of the metals that enter the Chesapeake Bay are 
associated with sediments. Many toxic metals have a high 
affinity for particles, as has been discussed earlier. 

Therefore, metals entering the Chesapeake Bay can end up in 
sediments, and not be transported to the ocean. 

Several metals are now found in sediments in concentrations 
that greatly exceed natural levels, in particular, cadmium, 
cobalt, lead, and zinc. If we determine the amount of metal in 
excess of natural levels, metal enrichment in the Chesapeake Bay 
is not significantly different from many other east coast 
estuaries that have been subjected to man's influence, such as 
the Delaware Bay, the Hudson River estuary, and Narragansett Bay 
(Table 4). 

Metal levels in sediments are in general higher in the 
Northern Bay and decrease seaward (Figure 1). This general 
decline is caused primarily by physical processes discussed 
earlier and the predominance of fine materials (clays and silts) 
in the Northern Bay. The metals are primarily associated with 
the fine fraction, and therefore are found in the Northern Bay. 

Metal distributions also follow general water circulation 
patterns, with higher concentrations along the western shore. 

In addition, some of the largest source of metals are in the 
Northern Bay. 


52 



TABLE 3 


ANNUAL 

_ SOURCE _ LOADING 

NATIONAL WEATHERING 650 

MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER 2,000 

POWER PLANT COOLING WATER DISCHARGE 1,150 

ANTI-FOULING PAINTS 1,700 


LOADINGS OF COPPER TO THE PATUXENT RIVER ESTUARY (IN 
KG/YEAR). 


53 




TABLE 4 


LOCATION 

COPPER 

ZINC 

NARRAGANSETT BAY 

6 

6 

HUDSON ESTUARY 

2 

4 

DELAWARE BAY 

2 

10 

CHESAPEAKE BAY 

1 

5 

SAVANNAH RIVER 

1 

1 

MISSISSIPPI DELTA 

1 

3 

SAN ANTONIO BAY 

1 

3 


LEAD 

17 

9 

16 

5 

3 

3 

4 


AVERAGE ENRICHMENT FACTORS FOR THE CONCENTRATIONS OF 
SEVERAL TRACE METALS IN A VARIETY OF COASTAL SEDIMENTS. 


54 






FIGURE I 



AVERAGE ENRICHMENT FACTORS FOR THE CONCENTRATIONS OF SEVERAL 
TRACE METALS IN SEDIMENTS IN CHESAPEAKE BAY, ALONG A 
TRANSECT FROM THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER FLATS TO THE BAY MOUTH. 


55 






There are localized "hotspots" of elevated metal levels, 
just as there are for organic compounds, particularly around 
industrial areas like the Baltimore Harbor area and the 
Elizabeth River-Hampton Roads area. 

Potential Impact 

I would like to address the potential for toxic effects. Do 
we have a problem in the Chesapeake Bay? This is a very dif¬ 
ficult question to answer definitively. There are many physi¬ 
cal, chemical, and biological factors that must be considered 
before this question can be answered. 

We cannot predict impacts of toxic compounds to an estuary 
by running one or even a series of single-species bioassays 
under laboratory conditions; the natural ecosystem is far too 
complex to be so simply described. Organisms interact with one 
another and with the fluid in which they live. These 
interactions are not simplistic ones, nor can they be ignored. 

I heartily endorse Bob Huggett's suggestion that biologists and 
geochemists work more closely together in coming years to 
discover important cause-and-effect relationships. 

Toxic metals have complex geochemistries and are present in 
a variety of different chemical forms, only some of which are 
biologically available and therefore toxic. In addition, 
inorganic compounds, like organic compounds, can be taken up by 
biota and can be further transformed. These transformations 
often yield compounds that have widely differing toxicity than 
the parent compound. 

There are indications that elevated metal levels within the 
Chesapeake Bay are exerting sub-lethal influences on the eco¬ 
system. We find high levels of metals in the organisms them¬ 
selves, and we also see altered species composition and reduced 
species diversity in some areas. 

As an example, many species of phytoplankton are sensitive 
to low concentrations of arsenate, concentrations found in some 
areas of the Bay, while other species tolerate concentrations 
two orders of magnitude higher (Table 5). In the event of arse¬ 
nate loading, for example, the sensitive species drop out of a 
community, leaving only the resistant species behind. Although 
difficult to detect, this type of impact may be extremely sig¬ 
nificant to the ecosystem as a whole, because phytoplankton form 
the base of the food chain and such alterations can affect the 
feeding of higher trophic levels. 

These are very complex problems; problems that will take 
some time to answer. 


56 



TABLE 5 


ARSENATE 


_ SPECIES _ uG *L -1 

ISOCHRYSIS GALBANA 2 

RHIZOSOLENIA FRAGILISSIMA 2.5 

SKELETONEMA COSTATUM 5 

AMPHIDINIUM CARTERAE 10 

CHAETOCHEROS PSEUDOCRINITUM 20 

THALASSIOSIRA PSEUDONANA >100 

TETRASELMIS CONTRACTA >100 


SENSITIVITY OF DIFFERENT SPECIES OF PHYTOPLANKTON TO 
ARSENATE. ARSENATE CONCENTRATIONS SHOWN ARE THOSE 
NECESSARY TO CAUSE A 50% REDUCTION IN GROWTH RATE. 


57 




In conclusion, I've presented only a small amount of 
information today because we have so very little time. I hope, 
however, that I've conveyed to you some sense of the degree of 
toxic metal pollution within the Chesapeake Bay and the 
complexity of the problem that confronts us, particularly with 
regard to the determination of toxicity, cause-and-effect 
relationships, and where the toxicity may occur. 

I hope that future meetings will find us further along in 
our efforts to determine the extent of trace metal stress in the 
Chesapeake Bay. 


58 


SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION 


by 

Drs. Robert J. Orth and Polly J. Penhale 
Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences 


Abstract 

Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) systems in the Chesapeake 
Bay are an important natural resource, providing a habitat to 
numerous species, a food source for wintering waterfowl, a buffer 
for shoreline erosion, and a contribution to the primary 
productivity of these shoal areas. These systems have undergone 
natual oscillations in the past but the most recent decline, which 
has affected all species in all areas of the Bay, appears to be 
related to the increasing amounts of nutrients and sediments being 
washed into the Bay. Issues facing researchers and managers today 
are related to conserving existing stands and restoring SAV beds to 
areas that are now devoid of any vegetation. Research should be 
geared to monitoring the status of the Bay SAV communities and to 
refine our understanding of those factors that control the distri¬ 
bution and abundance of SAV. Managers should view transplanting 
programs with caution and give priority to conservation of existing 
beds as opposed to mitigation plans to offset potential SAV losses. 

Dr. Orths Until recently, SAV systems in the Chesapeake Bay 
has been one of the least studied of the Bay's natural resources. 
Often considered a nuisance because it interferes with human 
activities such as boating or fishing or washes up on the beaches 
of expensive waterfront homes, SAV communities are now being showri 
to be an important part of the Bay's ecosystem. 

SAV systems are appreciated when understood in the context of 
the many roles that SAVs perform in shallower water areas where 
they occur. They are a source of food for wintering waterfowl and 
a habitat and nursery for a diverse array of animals. They 
stabalize bottom sediments and, in same areas, can be a barrier to 
shoreline erosion. They are an important source of primary 
production and are an important element in the nutrient cycling at 
these shoal environments. 

The Bay, with its extensive littoral area and broad salinity 
range supports many different species of SAV. These species are 
distributed along the Bay's salinity gradient depending on their 
different salinity tolerences. Eelgrass which is tolerant of high 
salinities is found in the lower reaches. Watermilfoil, sago 
pondweed, redhead grass, wild celery, coontail, and naiads are less 
tolerant of high salinities and are found in the middle and upper 
reaches of the Bay. 


59 



Widgeon grass, which is tolerant of a wider range of 
salinities is usually found from the Bay mouth to the 
Susquehanna flats. 

SAV systems in the Bay have been marked by a series of 
distinct oscillations with both desirable and undesirable 
species changing over time. Fragmentory evidence indicate that 
until recently, SAV has been a widespread feature of the Bay's 
shallow water bottom, although its past has been marked with 
some specific fluctuations in abundance. 

The decline of eelgrass in the lower and middle sections of 
the Bay during the 1930s coincided with its worldwide decline. 
Eelgrass gradually returned over the next 30 years until the 
more recent period of decline in the 1970s. 

Several other species considered to be nuisance forms also 
have fluctuated. Water chestnut created problems in the Potomac 
River in the 1920s and the 1950s with declines being attributed 
to local eradication programs. 

Watermilfoil expanded very rapidly in the Potomac River and 
in the Upper Bay in the late 1950s and 1960s, but was reduced in 
abundance by the 1960s. 

The recent decline of SAV, which affected all major species 
in all sections of the Bay, is a local phenomena as there are no 
widespread reports of SAV declines in other areas of the east 
coast. Loss of these important communities occurred in the 
1960s in the upper and middle Bay areas. 

Bay-wide decline of SAV accelerated in the 1970s and 
continued through 1980 with the most rapid declines occurring in 
1972 through 1974, especially after the occurrence of tropical 
storm Agnes. Sections of the Bay that once contained lush 
stands of SAV had either no SAV (e.g., Patuxent, Piankatank, and 
Rappahannock Rivers) or only remnant stands (e.g., Potomac and 
Upper York Rivers and Susquehanna flats). Many of these areas 
still contain little SAV through 1984, although there has been 
some encouraging signs or regrowth in several locations. There 
are still substantial beds of SAV, but these are primarily locat 
ed in the Lower Bay area. Areas in the Lower Bay, in close prox 
imity to SAV stands that persisted through the 1970s, are ap¬ 
parently being revegetated by natural processes, primarily by 
seeds that are transported from adjacent vegetated areas. 


60 


Another encouraging sign has been the resurgence of many 
native SAV species, as well as the exotic species hydrilla, in 
the tidal fresh water portions of the Potomac River, where lush 
stands were reported to occur in the early 1900s. Whether or 
not this vegetation persists today and is indicative of a 
renewal of favorable growing conditions, remains for future 
surveys to document. 

Hydrilla is a species with an extremely rapid growth rate 
and can rapidly colonize new areas as well as out-compete other 
species. While hydrilla is generally considered a nuisance 
species in many areas of the United States, its role in the 
ecology of the Potomac River is largely unknown and remains to 
be demonstrated. 

The causes for the most recent SAV decline are several. 
Although herbicides were initially indicated because of the 
large quantities being used by farmers, research showed that 
levels of herbicide found in the water were significantly below 
the levels needed to suppress the SAV growth. 

Both field observations and controlled experiments have 
suggested that the major factors are nutrient enrichment and 
increased turbidity. Areas of the greatest SAV decline occurred 
in those areas where nutrient enrichment has been the greatest. 

Nutrients stimulate phytoplankton growth and epiphyte growth 
on the plant surface? this along with the increased turbidity 
have reduced the light available for plant photosynthesis. 

The biological factors such as the reduction of periphyton 
grazing community, or swan and ray activity may be locally 
important, but probably play a secondary role in the overall SAV 
decline of the Bay. 

Although there has been no accurate documentation of the 
decline's impact, some direct and indirect evidence indicates 
that the effects on water quality and secondary production may 
be considerable. Several waterfowl species that eat SAV have 
declined. Some shoreline areas once protected by the baffling 
effects of the plants are now having increased problems with 
erosion. Because SAV supports very dense populations of 
invertebrates, the decline has virtually eliminated the habitats 
for many species and has had an effect on the overall production 
in these areas. 

The two major issues presently facing SAV communities today 
are, one, how best can we conserve and manage the remaining beds 
of SAV in the Bay? And two, what can be done to restore SAV 
communities to areas that once contained these lush stands that 
are now devoid of vegetation? 


61 


One key element tying these two issues together is that any 
plan to manage or restore SAV in the Bay must fully comprehend 
those factors that control SAV growth and survival. There is 
evidence suggesting that in addition to direct losses by dredge- 
and-fill operations, SAV in the Bay, as well as in many other 
parts of the world, are affected by nutrient inputs and sus¬ 
pended sediments. Areas of the greatest SAV decline are in 
close proximity to urban or industrial areas suggesting that 
man's activities are directly responsible for much of the de¬ 
cline. Natural perturbations, such as hurricanes and ice scour 
also occur, but these events are beyond human control. If SAV 
is to be a part of the Bay's future, we must concentrate our 
efforts on controlling sediment and nutrient input into the Bay 
and its estuaries. 

Since sediment and nutrient inputs are often cited as 
factors in the overall decline of the Bay, Federal and State Bay 
cleanup efforts will certainly have positive benefits for these 
systems. These cleanup activities are aimed at reducing sedi¬ 
ment and nutrient input by controlling runoff with Federal land 
use practices, such as buffer strips along shorelines and farm¬ 
lands and improved wastewater treatment facilities. Although 
some actions are currently being implemented, stricter enforce¬ 
ment and better controls will be necessary in the future as the 
population in the Bay's watershed increases and the demands 
placed on the Bay's resources increase. 

The long-term solution to the Bay’s problems and SAV health 
will be difficult and expensive to implement but are absolutely 
necessary if we are to maintain current conditions. It is also 
important to examine those activities having an adverse impact 
on SAV beds in the short-term and determine viable solutions. 

The most immediate problems are dredge-and-fill operations 
that permanently remove SAV habitats. Because SAV beds are so 
reduced in abundance, those areas still containing viable beds 
are now even more important. As water conditions improve, these 
beds may serve as a source of propagules for natural revegeta¬ 
tion of nearby denuded areas or for future transplanting pro¬ 
jects. Thus, resource managers should give serious considera¬ 
tion to any proposed project that would have an adverse impact 
on SAV. It's obvious, however, that in some situations, 
economic benefits of these projects may be substantial and need 
to be weighed in light of the importance of SAV. 

Transplant programs for SAV in the Bay have their place,but 
should be viewed today with caution. Transplanting may be the 
only mechanism for revegetating areas that are totally devoid of 
any SAV. These areas may be so far removed from any existing 
bed that natural revegetation may not occur. Transplanting, 


62 


however, may not succeed if conditions are not suitable for 
regrowth. State agencies should not blindly proceed with trans¬ 
plant programs without attempting to understand the critical 
factors affecting plant survival and improved water quality 
conditions. Well-designed transplant programs do have a place 
in the Bay. They should be viewed as tools to better understand 
those factors affecting SAV growth and to monitor water quality 
conditions of selected Bay sites. Thus, any transplant effort 
should have a concomitant monitoring program to gauge success or 
failure of the plants. Transplanting has been conducted success¬ 
fully in the lower Bay and the Potomac River. Nevertheless, we 
do have sites that have continually failed in our transplant 
efforts. The environmental information gained from these sites 
where transplants die when compared to successful sites, could 
have important implications when implementing plans for improved 
water quality through better land use practices and point source 
pollutant reductions. 

At present, mitigation plans to offset potential SAV losses 
caused by dredging operations should not be viewed as a viable 
option for the Chesapeake Bay. If conditions for suitable SAV 
growth do not improve, replanted SAV will certainly not 
survive. Because mitigation of SAV is still in the early 
research phases, conservation of existing SAV beds should be a 
priority consideration of any management agency. 

SAV communities in the Bay today are experiencing problems 
and will continue to do so unless management strategies are 
developed to protect them. Reversing the recent decline and 
attempting to restore the valuable communities will require a 
Bay-wide plan to both reduce nutrient inputs and continue to 
improve soil erosion control practices. 

Existing stands must be preserved, and SAV regrowth moni¬ 
tored to determine their persistence in particular areas. Al¬ 
though hydrilla is considered a nuisance species in other re¬ 
gions, it may play an important role in the Potomac River, which 
has had no extensive beds in the last 60 years. Control of this 
species should be carefully considered and initially directed 
locally where hydrilla impedes navigation or marina operations. 

SAV systems have historically been a very important part for 
the Bay's ecosystem. Their preservation will require an eco¬ 
system approach to understanding and controlling sources of 
stress. Anything less will result in continued deterioration of 
SAV in areas where they are in very low abundance and ultimately 
in those areas where healthy beds still persist. The future of 
the Bay's SAV will depend on our approach to solving the pro¬ 
blems of today and our commitment to a healthier Bay in the 
future. 

Thank you. 


63 


Bibliography 


Bayley, S., V.D. Stotts, P.F. Springer, and J. Stennis. 1978. 

Changes in Submerged Aquatic Macrophyte Populations at the Head 
of Chesapeake Bay, 1958-1975. Estuaries 1:73-84. 

Boynton, W.R. and K.L. Heck, Jr. 1982. Ecological Role and Value 
of Submerged Macrophyte Communities. pp. 428-502. In: 
Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. 

Carter, V., N.B. Rybicki, R.T. Anderson, T.J. Trombley, and L.L. 
Zynjuk. 1985. Data on the Distribution and Abundance of 
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Tidal Potomac River and 
Transition Zone of the Potomac Estuary, Maryland, Virginia, and 
the District of Columbia, 1983 and 1984. U.S. Geological 
Survey Open - File Report 85-82. Reston, VA. 

Cumming, H.S., W.C. Purdy, and H.P. Ritter. 1916. Investigations 
of the Pollution and Sanitary of the Potomac Watershed. 

Treasury Dept, U.S. Public Health Service Hygenic Lab. Bull. 

No. 104. 231 p. 

Flemer, D.A., G.A. Mackiernan, W. Nehlsen, and V.K. Tippie. 

1983. Cheasapeake Bay: A Profile of Environmental Change. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Reigon, III, Philadelphia, 
PA. 200 p. 

Kemp, W.M., W.R. Boynton, R.R. Twilley, J.C. Stevenson, and J.C. 

Means. 1983. The Decline of Submerged Vascular Plants in the 
Upper Chesapeake Bay: Summary of Results Concerning Possible 
Causes. Mar. Tech. Soc. J. 17:78-89. 

Kemp, W.M., W.R. Boynton, R.R. Twilley, J.C. Stevenson, and L.G. 
Ward. 1984. Influences of Submerged Vascular Plants on 
Ecological Processes in Upper Chesapeake Bay. p. 367-394. 

In: V. Kennedy (ed.). The Estuary as a Filter. Academic 

Press, N.Y. 


Orth, R.J. 1977. The Importance of Sediment Stability in Sea- 
grass Communities. pp. 281-30. In: B.C. Coull (ed.). 

Ecology of Marine Benthos. Univ. of South Carolina Press, 
Columbia, S.C. 

Orth, R.J. and K.A. Moore. 1981. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in 
the Chesapeake Bay: Past, Present and Future. pp. 271-283. 
In: Proc. 46th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conf. Wildlife Manage. Inst., Wash., D.C. 

Orth, R.J. and K.A. Moore. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: An Unprecen- 
dented Decline in Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. Science 
222:51-53. 


64 



Orth, R.J. and K.A. Moore. 1984. Distribution and Abundance of 
Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay: An Historical Perspec¬ 
tive. Estuaries 7:531-540. 

Orth, R.J., K.L. Heck, Jr., and J. van Montfrans. 1984. Faunal 
Communities in Seagrass Communities: A Review of the In¬ 
fluence of Plant Structure and Prey Characteristics on 
Predator-Prey Relationships. Estuaries 7:339-350. 

Perry, M.C., R.E. Munro, and G.M. Haramis. 1981. Twenty-five 
Year Trends in Diving Duck Populations in Chesapeake Bay. 
p. 229-310. In: Proc. 46th North American Wildlife and 
Natural Resources Conf., Wildlife Manage., Inst., Wash., 

D.C. 


Thayer, G.W., D.A. Wolfe, and R.B. Williams. 1975. The Impact 
of Man on Seagrass Systems. Amer. Sci. 63:288-296. 

Tippie, V.K. 1984. An Environmental Characterization of 

Cheseapeake Bay and a Framework for Action, p. 467-487. 

In: V. Kennedy (ed.). The Estuary as a Filter. Academy 

Press, N.Y. 

Van Montfrans, J., R.L. Wetzel, and R.J. Orth. 1984. Epiphyte- 
grazer Relationships in Seagrass Meadows: Consequences for 
Seagrass Growth Pnd production. Estuaries 7:289-309. 

Ward, L.G., W.M. Kemp, and W.R. Boynton. 1984. The Influence 
of Waves and Seagrass Communities on Suspended Sediment 
Dynamics in an Estuarine Embayment. Mar. Geol. 59:85-103. 

Wildlife Management Institute. 1981. Improving Management of 
Chesapeake Bay. Proc. 46th North American Wildlife and 
Natural Resources Conf., Wash., D.C. 


65 

















































SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES 


67 



s 





















* 





















































NITROGEN VS. PHOSPHORUS 


by 

Dr. Christopher D'Elia 
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory 

Dr. D'Elia: Before I begin, I have two comments. Dr. Eric 
Schneider, being concerned about the limited time available, put 
this big alarm clock in front of me figuring I could look at it and 
keep on schedule. 

Secondly, I hope everyone who is not a scientist understands 
that scientific controversies play an important role in science. 

We scientists are often perceived as being a contentious, 
disagreeable lot who can't really agree with each other, much less 
anybody who has any decisions to make. 

When I put today's program together and planned a session on 
scientific controversies, I wasn't doing so with a mind to showing 
people the disagreeable side of us scientists, but to show people 
that there are many things that we scientists don't know much about 
and that we need to understand more fully to be able to make 
informed decisions. So if we have arguments at all today, consider 
them friendly and constructive discussions among ourselves toward 
the goal of understanding things better. 

With that. I'll launch into my talk on the nitrogen-versus- 
phosphorus controversy, a very important one, I feel. 

I want to talk about the Patuxent River, which is merely a 
little tributary on the Western Shore of the Chesapeake. It is 
very far down on the list of tributaries in terms of its volume of 
flow. However, it has one very important characteristic; it is 
between two pretty big and important cities, Washington and 
Baltimore, and these cities represent the boundaries of a very 
expanding population center. As a result, there are all kinds of 
things happening in the Patuxent Basin that are indications of what 
might be happening to the rest of the Chesapeake. In fact, on a 
flow-weighted basis we're seeing an impact with sewage effluent 
that approximates what we’ve seen on the Potomac River. 

Figure 1 shows a trend that is not a very encouraging one. It 
depicts the daily rate of discharge of sewage effluent being 
discharged into the Patuxent River. Presently, it's a trickle 
relative to the Blue Plains effluent being discharged into the 


69 



PATUXENT RIVER 



YEAR 


Figure 1. Trend of Sewage Effluent Discharged 


70 



Potomac River. But then again, the Patuxent River is a trickle 
relative to the Potomac. We're up to about 38 million gallons 
of discharge per day right now. We anticipate by the year 2000 
as much as 60 million gallons a day. 

Now, one thing that needs to be mentioned about the Chesa¬ 
peake Bay, and the Patuxent is no exception as this applies 
equally as well, is that things vary tremedously depending on 
the climate, wet years, dry years, et cetera. 

On an annual basis, a greater percentage of phosphorus is 
derived from terrigeneous point sources (e.g., sewage effluent) 
and nitrogen from non-point sources (e.g. runoff). However, 
there's an important caveat: that the sediments in the estu¬ 
arine saline portions of the Chesapeake Bay and Patuxent River, 
of course, are in essence, seasonally very significant non-point 
sources of phosphorus that are often unaccounted for as non¬ 
point sources. They represent a source of phosphorus to the 
water column that can be very, very difficult to control. 

The sequence of nutrient enrichment is as shown in Figure 
2. When we add nutrients to a system, like the river, nutrient 
concentrations in the water column increase. This, in turn, 
stimulates the growth of algae. The algae block light out in 
the water column and the accumulated algae constitute increased 
particulate loads. This particulate organic matter settles to 
deep water and subsequently decays and consumes the oxygen. The 
anoxia that we presently see in the mainstem of the Chesapeake 
Bay is believed to be largely the result of decay of biomass 
from the local productivity of phytoplankton stimulated by the 
input of nutrients to the Bay and not by the decay of organic 
matter from terrigenous sources. We think it's getting worse 
because the nutrients are being added at a greater rate and the 
phytoplankton are growing faster in response. 

Now comes a very important point: The Chesapeake estuary is 
stratified. There is a lighter, freshwater layer on top. Most 
of the pollutants come in via a surface flow. The heavier, sal¬ 
tier water on the bottom, whose salt is derived from relatively 
"clean" ocean water, mixes in. Especially important is what I 
refer to extremely loosely as a "salinity transition zone," 
shown in Figure 3. I know my scientific colleagues might take 
me to task for that usage, which I use as a broad generaliza¬ 
tion. 

This is the zone, in particular, I think that we need to be 
worrying about right now. I would argue very strongly that 
while it’s certainly important to be concerned with the main 


71 


INCREASED 
NUTRIENT INPUTS 


INCREASED 
NUTRIENTS 
IN WATER COLUMN 


INCREASED 
ALGAL GROWTH 
IN WATER COLUMN 


DECREASED CLARITY AND 
INCREASED PARTICULATE ORGANIC 
LEVELS IN WATER COLUMN 


SETTLING OF PARTICULATE ORGANIC 
MATERIAL TO DEEP WATER 


DECAY OF PARTICULATE ORGANIC 
MATERIAL AND DECREASE IN 
OXYGEN LEVELS 
IN DEEP WATER 


Figure 2. Scheme of possible effects of enrichment in a 
stratified water column. 


72 







Patuxent River High Flow Season 



73 















Patuxent River Low Flow Season 



Figure 3B 










stem of the Bay, we're looking at the largest problem in terms 
of volume of water to clean up first. We really need to be 
focusing more on the tributaries, the areas that are smaller in 
water volume but where I think we have the best chance of doing 
something in the near-term. The salinity transition zones of 
tributaries are important in the tributaries. 

Figure 4, derived from the "Heinle Report" to EPA, illus¬ 
trates that the nutrient enrichment sequence as shown has occur¬ 
red on the Patuxent. There are two points to note. First, down 
stream of the Benedict Bridge is where you start to see the 
higher salinities in the river. Even in the old data, 1936 to 
1939, in the estuarine portion (downstream of Benedict Bridge), 
we had historically high concentrations of phosphorus in the 
water column in the summertime. In more recent data, 1968 and 
after, we see again the same kind of a pattern, very high concen 
trations of phosphorus in the summertime. Although in general, 
phosphorus levels are quite high the year-round. Second, there 
have been drastic increases in phosphorus upstream of the bridge 
in fresher waters. 

How might those concentrations affect algal growth? In the 
business of nutrients, the rule of thumb is, if it's there, it's 
probably not as important as it is if it's not there. A limit¬ 
ing nutrient is one that controls the growth of plants by its 
scarcity. By virtue of the fact that it's not present in 
abundance, it controls plant growth. Plants need nutrients to 
grow. We put fertilizers on our gardens to supply more of a 
growth-limiting nutrient to increase the concentrations. 

The high summertime phosphorus levels downstream suggest 
that there is something going on in that area of the estuary 
that is putting phosphorus into the water column in excess of 
algae demand and from a source that we might not be able to 
control very effectively with a traditional management strategy. 

Next in the sequence of enrichment effects that I 
illustrated, turbidity increases as phytoplankton grows in 
response to nutrients. The increase in turbidity is indicated 
by Secchi depth which shows how far you can lower a small white 
disk before it disappears. Obviously, the deeper you can lower 
it, the clearer the water. 

Well, in the "good old days," you could lower the Secchi 
disk deeper in the southern part of the river, of the Patuxent 
River, before it would disappear. In more recent data, we see 
that the Secchi depths are considerably less than they used to 
be as illustrated in Figure 5. This is some of the most 
important evidence that was adduced in the EPA Chesapeake Bay 
study that has led to a lot of the further refinements in our 
knowledge• 


75 


UPSTREAM OF BENEDICT BRIDGE DOWNSTREAM OF BENEDICT BRIDGE 


i_l • ‘d-Jod 




1 

| 

i 

1 

-T 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o o 

in 


ro 

CM 

1 

jd 6rV * 

d-. 

gOd 



76 


Figure 4. Concentrations of orthophosphate-P in surface waters of the Patuxent 
River upstream and downstream of Benedict Bridge versus time of year 



















SECCHI DEPTH (m) 


PATUXENT ESTUARY-JULY 


2.5 


2.0 


1.5 


1.0 


0.5 


0 


O 1936.37.39 
o 1963 
A 1966 
H 1969,70 
• 1978 


T 


T 


cP 


o ° 
o 

a 


,cP 


n 


J 

°CDO° i 

o 


A 

A 


O ^ 


o 

n cA 


o 


• O o 


=> # ° • 


JL 


0 


4 6 8 10 

SURFACE* SALINITY 


14 


Figure 5 Secchi depth during July in the Patuxent estuary versus 
anlinity (llci.nle ct ol. 1980). 


77 



We've seen some striking changes in the Patuxent River over 
time in other regards. Nutrient-stimulated increase in tur¬ 
bidity alone is not the sole manifestation. Turbidity could 
also be due to increased sediment loads, for example. However, 
present evidence suggests that there was an increase in 
phytoplankton growth and that an accumulation of algae biomass 
decreased water clarity. 

If we compare older data with newer data on the Patuxent 
River, we have seen a year-round increase in phytoplankton 
counts at the Benedict area, the "salinity transition" zone of 
the river. Concomitant with that, if we compare minimum dis¬ 
solved oxygen concentrations in 1938 with 1978 June and August 
data, we see a strikingly lower dissolved oxygen content in deep 
water in recent years as depicted in Figure 6. 

To be sure, the main stem of the Bay also influences down¬ 
stream oxygen concentrations. However, in the Benedict-Sheridan 
Point area, there's a particularly pronounced oxygen sag. This 
has been identified by the State of Maryland as a critical zone, 
an area that we see as being a particularly impacted area, and 
one that I am optimistic that we can improve. 

Conventional dogma states that fresh waters are phosphorus- 
limited and marine waters are nitrogen-limited. If one wants to 
make any inroads to controlling the oxygen depletion/nutrient 
problems in the Bay, ideally one wants to make the nutrient 
that's in shortest supply in even shorter supply. 

So in freshwater, where phosphorus is usually in shorter 
supply than nitrogen what one generally does is remove phospho¬ 
rus. In marine waters we haven't had very much experience in 
terms of nutrient-control strategies; but we do know that gen¬ 
erally speaking nitrogen is in least availability and that 
nitrogen (N) is the element of major concern for management. 

Because estuaries lie in between freshwater and sea water 
areas, the question arises, naturally, what limits the growth of 
algae in estuaries, and what would we want to control? 

How can one determine which nutrient is a limiting nutrient? 
Studies to do so have fallen into four general categories as 
described in Figure 7. 

Enrichment studies are probably the most direct way of 
finding out which nutrient element limits plant growth, because 
one merely takes a parcel of water and adds nutrients to see 
what grows in response to nutrient enrichment. 

Elemental ratios of nutrients dissolved in the water are 
extremely important in giving a general idea of what's available 
in excess. But there are also some problems associated with 
that approach. 


78 



Fieure 6. Concentrations of dissolved oxygen in bottom waters of the Patuxent 
River estuary during July 1936-1940 and July 1977-1979. 


79 



































































HOW DO WE PREDICT ENRICHMENT EFFECTS? 

1. Enrichment studies 

2. Mathematical models 

3. Elemental ratios 

4. Physiological measurements 


Figure 7. 


80 


The State of Maryland has quite a good mathematical water 
quality model for the Patuxent River. The model includes one 
very important feature, which is sediment-nutrient release. I 
would agree — and I don't have time to develop the argument 
very much here — that while mathematical models are pretty good 
in telling us approximately how much of a pollutant is delivered 
to a given area of an estuary, they're not very helpful for dis¬ 
tinguishing whether nitrogen or phosphorus is the critical 
element to control. Much of the controversy regarding N and P 
in the Chesapeake centers on what I think is an over-reliance on 
such models by managers. 

Monitoring studies have given us excellent information on 
dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) elemental ratios. If one 
looks at the nutrient concentrations at Benedict, again remember¬ 
ing that what's there in least supply is likely to be the limit¬ 
ing nutrient. Figure 8 illustrates an excess of dissolved in¬ 
organic phosphous (DIP) in the summer and very little DIN, and 
vice versa in the winter. Nitrate, nitrite, and ammonium are 
forms of nitrogen. And phosphate is a form of phosphorus. In 
Figure 8, you see that there is a very high peak of nitrogen in 
the wintertime and a very high peak of phosphorus in the late 
summer. When you take the ratio of dissolved inorganic nitrogen 
to phosphorus, we get something analogous to a fertilizer ratio 
used by farmers and gardeners. We see that the river is ex¬ 
tremely nitrogen-rich in the winter (DIN:DIP > 90:1) and very 
nitrogen-poor in the summer (DIN:DIP < 5:1). What does that 
mean? 

It means that the relative abundance of nitrogen in the win¬ 
tertime is much greater than it is in the summertime and that 
the relative availability of phosphate in the summertime is much 
greater than it is in the wintertime. 

As I said, commercial fertilizer constitutes a good anal¬ 
ogy. Plants need nutrients in certain ratio. The 10-10-10 or 
other ratio you see on a fertilizer bag tells whether it is 
ideal for vegetables, lawns, et cetera. Since algae are plants 
also, they as well need an ideal supply ratio of nitrogen to 
phosphorus. 

It turns out that the ratio of nitrogen atoms to phosphorus 
that the average planktonic alga needs is somewhere between 10 
and 20 to 1. So as we can infer from Figure 8, in the summer¬ 
time phosphorus is relatively abundant and nitrogen is relative¬ 
ly scarce, and vice versa in the wintertime. 

Secondarily treated sewage effluent is extremely P-rich. 

The ratio of nitrogen to phosphate in sewage is very, very low, 
typically 5 or 6 to 1. So sewage is very phosphorus-rich rela¬ 
tive to plants' needs. 


81 


MIGROUOLES OF P PER UTER MICROUOIES OF N PER LITER 


N CONCENTRATIONS IN PATUXENT 



F«fc> Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug S«p Oct Nov 

MONTH 


P CONCENTRATIONS IN PATUXENT 



MONTH 

Figure 8. 


82 
























































Runoff tends to be N-rich. For purposes of this talk, I di¬ 
vide the Patuxent into three different zones as shown in Figure 
3. One's the "upstream" area. One's what I have called loosely 
the "salinity transition" zone, and the other is the "deep stra¬ 
tified" zone. During the high-flow season, terrestrial runoff 
probably accounts for the very high availability of nitrogen and 
relative unavailability of phosphorus. During that period, 
there is nitrogen-rich runoff from urban sources, agriculture, 
and other land sources and there is relatively low demand in the 
water for these compounds. The result is a very nitrogen-rich 
system. 

We also have the input of water from the Susquehanna. Oddly 
enough, it's very important in delivering nitrogen to the Patux¬ 
ent River. The deep water actually "turns the corner" into the 
Patuxent because of the circulation of flow of an estuary, and 
carries lots of nitrogen into the estuary during the wintertime. 

But the winter is not the major growing season. We're in¬ 
terested in controlling the growth of plants during the major 
growing season which is the summer and the low-flow season, when 
the situation is different. 

The major external source during this period is phosphorus- 
rich effluent from upstream sewage treatment plants. The non¬ 
point sources are relatively low during low-flow, and point 
sources predominate. However, there is a "non-point source," if 
you will, of phosphorus coming from bottom sediments that in 
essence "buffers" the concentration of phosphorus at very, very 
high levels in the lower part of the estuary. This, in essence, 
make phosphorus very abundant relative to nitrogen in the estu¬ 
ary during the low-flow period. 

Given the knowledge of ratios and their seasonal variation, 
we did some enrichment studies at Benedict, Maryland. When I 
say "we," I'm talking mainly about Jim Sanders, Walt Boynton and 
Steve Cibik and myself, in which we were looking at the nutrient 
enrichment of outdoor, continuous culture, phytoplankton tanks. 

I will not dwell on the details; but basically, you add nitrogen 
or phosphorus and see what grows. What stimulates growth the 
most is the limiting nutrient. That is, if you add nitrogen and 
you get a big growth response, nitrogen is the limiting nutri¬ 
ent. 


Figure 9 indicates what we found: In the summertime if we 
added dissolved inorganic nitrogen compounds, we got a tremedous 
stimulation of growth in the tanks very soon after an experiment 
started. Natural phytoplankton communities were used that were 
isolated directly from the river. So one would expect that 
their nutritional condition when they were put into that tank is 


83 



RELATIVE FLUORESCENCE 



0 5 10 

DAY OF EXPERIMENT 

□ CONTROL + P o NH4 a P+NH4 


Figure 9. 


* 


84 









a good indicator of what their actual nutritional condition is 
in the river. And here, nitrogen was deficient. The control 
tank to which we added nothing whatsoever gave no response, nor 
did the P-tank. So we can add phosphorus in the summer period 
and not get a response whatsoever. 

In wintertime we see a weak response to phosphorus rather 
late in an experiment. For nitrogen, there is no response what¬ 
soever. 

This is completely in keeping with the availability of nitro¬ 
gen or phosphorus that I showed above. In the spring and fall, 
we find that neither N or P stimulates growth. Neither phospho¬ 
rus nor nitrogen addition is very important, as one would also 
expect from monitoring data. 

I can summarize for you what we have seen in terms of nu¬ 
trient limitation over the annual cycle in the Patuxent River. 

In Figure 9, the ordinal scale represents a relative indication 
of nutrient limitation in the Patuxent. The higher the index 
value, the more likely that nutrient is limiting by our enrich¬ 
ment studies. The first summer we saw a strong response to 
nitrogen addition and very little to phosphorus. 

Late fall saw no response to nutrient enrichment. In the 
winter season of 1983-1984, we saw some response to phosphorus, 
but on a relative level, that response was less than nitrogen 
the previous summer. In the springtime, there was no response 
to the addition of either nutrient. The following year, we got 
a large response to nitrogen and very, very little response to 
phosphorus. 

Figure 10 clearly shows that we get a much greater response 
to addition of nitrogen to our system than we do to phosphorus. 
The system, therefore, is likely to be a nitrogen-limited sys¬ 
tem. 


What does this mean in terms of its management implications? 
Well, I think there is a very simple take-home lesson there. If we 
are really going to try to control the anoxia problem, at least in 
the tributaries, we must control the growth of algae. To control 
the growth of algae, we have to remove what's available in least 
supply — the "limiting nutrient". That is nitrogen, I think, for 
most of the saline regions of the Patuxent River and probably for 
elsewhere in the saline regions of the Chesapeake Bay during the 
low-flow season. 

So we're going to need to develop some strategy to control N 
inputs. I have not included in the program and discussions of how 
one might go about doing this. Generally speaking, N removal has 
been regarded as a very, very expensive and difficult process to do 
both for point and non-point sources. I think there is some 


85 


INDEX (1 =■ Not Limited, 14 =* Strongly Limited) 


NUTRIENT LIMITATION IN PATUXENT 


SALINITY-TRANSITION ZONE, 1983-1984 



MONTH 

N LIMITATION ■-■ P LIMITATION 

Figure 10. 


86 












evidence now that there are sewage treatment processes available 
that are both cost-effective and technologically reliable. So, for 
at least the point sources, it looks like we do have a chance of 
limiting the amount of nitrogen entering the system. I open that 
to debate in the management community, and I hope that serious 
consideration is given to it there. 

With regard to non-point sources of nitrogen, it is possible 
that we can do something to reduce nitrogen inputs. I'm a very 
strong proponent of the concept of the critical areas zoning that 
has been legislated in Maryland; this legislation and resulting 
regulation call for set-backs and other things that might be done 
to help reduce the non-point source inputs. 

So I think that with set-backs, best-management practices of 
farms, judicious application of fertilizers by homeowners, proper 
construction practices, etc., we can make some inroads in the 
nitrogen control situation. 

I think with that I will stop my talk and take one or two 
questions before we have to move on to the next speaker. 

Thank you. 

Dr. D'Elia: The next speaker is Jay Taft of Harvard 
University, who with Tom Malone, is going to discuss the anoxia 
problem in the Chesapeake Bay, what we know about it and what we 
can conceivably do about it. So, Jay Taft? 


87 






























ANOXIA 


by 

Dr. Jay L. Taft 
Howara University 

and 

Dr. Thomas C. Malone 
Horn Point Environmental Laboratory 


Dr. Taft: I'm very pleased to be back in this area for a 
conference on Chesapeake Bay. I am also pleased to acknowledge 
Tom Malone as the co-presenter; but he is not responsible for 
any statements that I might make. 

Chris D’Elia has asked us to discuss anoxia in the 
Chesapeake Bay. Anoxia, in a broader context, is part of an 
oxygen gradient. Oxygen gradients are normal features of 
systems that have density gradients in the vertical. In the 
Chesapeake, the first account of possible oxygen stress was 
published in 1629 in the notes of John Smith. His party was 
travelling up one of the tributaries and observed fish swimming 
near the surface with their heads out of the water. They also 
observed dead fish along the shore. This behavior has been 
associated with oxygen stress or with advective processes 
carrying organisms into the shallows. In modern accounts, both 
fish and crabs have been observed to behave in the same fashion 
producing "jubilees" along the shore, presumably an escape 
response to low oxygen water being advected into the shallows. 

The first account I have found explaining the mechanism for 
forming oxygen gradients in estuaries was written by Sales and 
Skinner, in the Journal of the Franklin Institute in 1917, from 
data collected in the Potomac River Estuary and in the Upper 
Chesapeake Bay in 1912. They write, "...this phenomenon is 
caused by the stratification of the water due to the specific 
gravity of the under-run of sea-water, which cuts off vertical 
circulation, and to the subsequent depletion of the oxygen in 
the lower layers by natural agencies." The "natural agencies" 
involved were respiration of plants and animals, direct 
oxidation of dead organic matter, and the decomposition which 
results from the action of bacteria. Newcombe, working out of 
the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory in the late 1930's and 
early 1940's, further documented the observations made by Sales 
and Skinner. In an article in Science , July 22, 1938, Newcombe 
and Horne write, "Studies on the physical and chemical 
properties of Chesapeake Bay waters during the summer of 1936 
gave evidence of a definite oxygen-poor layer at the bottom in 
deeper regions, and data from subsequent series of water samples 
have proved the existence of that layer and have furnished 
interesting information concerning its vertical and horzontal 
extent". 


89 




This role of density stratification is illustrated by the 
data from the Bay in 1977 shown in Slide 1. As the water-column 
density gradient, expressed as change in sigma-t over change in 
depth, increases from February to June to oxygen concentration 
in the lower layer decreases from near saturation to anoxia. 

Even in February, when temperatures are still rather low, if 
stratification increases there are enough "natural agencies" 
consuming oxygen in the deep water that oxygen concentration 
declines. Slide 2 shows the relationships among the annual 
cycles of deep water tmperature, oxygen concentration and 
salinity, and change in density over change in depth during 1964 
to 1966 and 1969 to 1971 in the middle portion of Chesapeake 
Bay. Again, we see that through the annual cycle, the oxygen 
concentration in the deep water is generally low or zero in 
summer and early fall and increases at otheer times of the 
year. The oxygen plot in Slide 2a shows reoxygenation events in 
August of both 1964 and 1965, after which the deep layer again 
lost oxygen before the surface water temperature decreased to 
produced seasonal reoxygenation. Short-term reoxygenation 
during summer was not observed in the data set for 1969 to 1971. 

The emerging picture is that anoxia has been a recurrent 
feature with varying intensity. There are other observations, 
particularly about fisheries and submerged aquatic vegetation, 
in the Chesapeake Bay which lead us to believe that the system 
is under stress. However, we are faced with a difficult 
interpretational problem because the data are spotty in time and 
space. We must make some judgements about the quality of the 
data and how to use them. Also, the mechanism is more complex 
than presented by Sales and Skinner. Slide 3 shows two graphs 
of change in dissolved oxygen concentration vs. change in 
salinity over the same depth from the upper to the lower layer. 
Each datum point in Slide 3a represents a vertical profile in 
the mid-bay during the month of July in ten different years 
between 1949 and 1980. Linear regression analysis yields an 
equation for the line through the points which has a regression 
coefficient of 0.87. If we assume that the vertical structure 
of the water column and its processes can reach a steady-state 
in the summer, then the line in Slide 3a represents the steady- 
state relationship between the salinity gradient and the 
dissolved oxygen gradient. This further implies steady-state 
between oxygen utilization in the deeper layer and its resupply 
via the surface. If we apply this model to other seasons, we 
might be able to test for a steady-state in the utilization and 
resupply processes. 


90 


Slide 1 



The dashed line shows change in density over 
water column depth for a station in the mid-portion 
of Chesapeake Bay. The solid line shows correspond¬ 
ing oxygen concentration in the deep water. 


91 


cm 



Slide 


04 



c 

o 

• rH 

4-> 

0 >1 

P 4-> 

4-5 *H 

c 0 
0 c 
o 0 
c 0 s 
o 

O V-i 

0 

c >i 
0 0 
Di >—* 

X 0 >i 
O O 0 
0 CQ 

*. M-4 

0 P 0 

p o .x 
2 0 0 
+J 0 

0 O Cu 

^ 4J 0 
0 0 

a Vi 0 

£ 0 x: 

0 >iU 
4-) 0 
rH M-l 

U O 

0 a 

jj 0 c 

0 0 o 

5 0 ! -h 
4-J 

a 0 v 

0 s: o 

0 -P Qu 

05 i 

05 05 
M-l C -H 

O 0 B 

0 ** 0 
0 >is: 

rH -P -P 

O -H 

>i c c 

O -H -H 


rH 0 0 
0 0 O) 
3 C 
C 05 0 
C C jC 
C 0 O 


92 























Slide 3 


a. 



b. 



Change in oxygen concentration over depth plotted against the 
salinity change over the same depth. Panel (a) for summer samples 
taken in 10 different years between 1949 and 1980. Panel (b) for the 
upper to middle portion of Chesapeake Bay during May 1950 and 1980. 


93 







Slide 3b shows a similar plot for data in the month of May 
1950 and 1980. The 1950 data give a regression which is 
virtually identical to the steady-state model constructed with 
the 10 years of summer data. The May 1980 data, however, 
diverge significantly from the model. Data points in the upper 
left of the plot represent sharp reductions in oxygen concen¬ 
tration over relatively small salinity increases. This might be 
explained by large differences in the spring freshet which 
typically peaks during April. The average Susquehanna River 
flows in April were 85,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) in 1950 
and 94,000 cfs in 1980. During May of both years, the flow 
averaged about 39,000 cfs. It is not clear that the circulation 
effects of an 11% increase in April flow rates would have 
resulted in the sharp difference between the two plots in Slide 
3b. However, it would be reasonable to expect greater oxygen 
demand in the deeper waters to give such a result. The organic 
matter stimulating greater oxygen consumption in May 1980 could 
have been delivered with the spring freshet, or it could have 
autocthonous material from recent or previous production. From 
this minimal amount of data, we might suspect that there was 
significantly more organic material in the deep layers of the 
Bay in May 1980 than in 1950, under similar river flow regimes. 

Returning to the annual cycle of events in the Bay, let us 
consider the time scale of some of the major processes. The 
spring freshet maks the onset of oxygen decline in the main 
portion of the Bay. The freshet delivers fresh water to the 
system which influences the stratification through the processes 
discussed by Bill Boicourt. The water also delivers organic 
material which can be decomposed in the Upper Bay, thereby 
reducing oxygen concentration. The freshet also delivers 
nutrients to the Main Bay which are utilized by phytoplankton, 
through the processes described by Chris D'Elia, which increases 
the organic matter in the system and the ultimate oxygen 
demand. Thus, the spring freshet can be a pulse source of both 
organic material and the nutrients required to produce new 
organic matter within the Bay. Decomposition then feeds 
nutrients back into the system so that cycles are established 
and keep functioning through the year in the absence of 
additional strong inputs from the watershed. 

The vertical stratification portion of the annual cycle has 
the general form depicted in Slide 2, but it is subject to local 
modifications and to far-field forces affecting advection on 
intermediate time-scales. Bill Boicourt gave examples of local 
mixing, such as wind mixing and mixing due to turbulence over 
the tidal cycle. There is some potential each time the tide 
changes for mixing to occur near the picnocline. Comprehensive 
vertical mixing occurs in the York River Estuary on a 


94 


spring-tide, neap-tide cycle. Therefore, time scales 
influencing stratification range from 1 year for major fresh 
water inflows, to monthly for places like the York River, to 5 
to 10 days for mixing driven by meteorological events. 

Advective processes, those which move water without 
necessarily mixing it, also occur on various time-scales. 
Internal waves can move water vertically on scales of minutes to 
hours. These were first suggested and possibly observed by 
Biggs and Flemer during close time-series oxygen measurements 
made in Chesapeake Bay. Local wind forcing can advect surface 
waters across the Bay. The lower layer flows upwind to maintain 
hydrostatic equilibrium shifting the tilt of the picnocline on 
time-scales of a few days. Data collected by Tom Malone and his 
group illustrate this phenomenon in Slide 4. The upper panels 
show both the picnocline and the oxycline tilting downward to 
the west on 20 August 1984. 

By 23 August, as shown in the lower panels, local winds have 
shifted the tilt downward to the east. This process has been 
implicated in "jubilees" during which crabs and fish come 
inshore to escape low-oxygen water moving into the shallows. 

To summarize, there are some historical data with which we 
can compare recent information and suggest that changes have 
occurred adversely effecting biological resources in Chesapeake 
Bay. Although we belive low-oxygen concentrations in deep water 
is a normal feature of summer in Chesapeake Bay, indications are 
it has increased in spatial and temporal extent. Deterioration 
with respect to oxygen is most likely caused by increased 
material both entering the Bay and being produced in it in 
response to inorganic nutrient inputs. Recent careful studies 
have shown that summer anoxia can be interrupted by local mixing 
events, and that, once formed, anoxic water may be advected from 
place to place by local and far-field meteorological events. 

Such variability must be accounted for as we assess the 
long-term trend. It will also hamper our ability to detect 
improvements in conditions in response to management actions 
implemented for both point and non-point source nutrient inputs. 

I would like to stop there; and if there are any questions, 
I'd be happy to try to answer them. Yes? 

Question: Would you care to venture an opinion as to 

whether or not the trend that you've seen is related to our use 
of the Bay as opposed to being what might naturally happen in a 
body of water under relatively pristine conditions, 
nevertheless, natural history for a body of this type? 


95 


DE PT H, meters 


Slide 4 


01 STANCE, Kilometers 

W 4 8 12 E W 4 8 12 E 





STATION LOCATIONS »une rr al. mbs 


West-east transect from the Patuxent River to the 
Choptank River showing the response of the picnocline 
and oxycline to wind forcing. 


96 









Dr Taft: The question is: If the trend is real, is it 
due to a natural progression of things in the system or can it 
be attributed to anthropogenic effects or man's effects on the 
system. 

I think certainly that there's a small component of natural 
degradation in the system. However, I think that the major 
changes that we have seen parallel not only the growth in the 
watershed, but the changes in agriculture in the watershed. 
Specifically, with respect to nutrients, the amount of land and 
crops has not changed very much, as Bob showed earlier this 
morning. But the intensity of that land use such as getting 
three crops in two years instead of one crop per year, the sharp 
trend in the increase of soluble nitrogen fertilizers which has 
increased while the total nitrogen suspension since 1955 has 
doubled, and the use of soluble ammonia fertilizers has gone up 
ten or fifteen times. So the growth, the way we're using the 
land, all parallel the changes that we see and can be 
associated, correlated, with the changes that we see in the 
system. But we don't have as good a historical data set to make 
all of the exact connections that we would like to. 

Dr. D'Elia: Thank you very much. 

(Tools for assessing changes in the system are being 
developed in the form of monitoring programs to collect 
appropriate data sets and mathematical models to help evaluate 
and fill gaps in the data sets. Since this talk was delivered, 
better data have been collected, a steady-state model for the 
Chesapeake Bay has been developed and used, and a real time 
three-dimensional model has been commissioned for development. 
With these tools in hand, managers should make more informed 
decisions and have the ability to both project and actually 
assess the results of those decisions.) 


97 












































































THE ROLES OF BLUE-GREEN ALGAE 


by 

Dr. Lawrence W. Haas 
Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences 

and 

Dr. Hans W. Paerl 
University of North Carolina 

When you mentioned the word cyanobacteria to a plankton 
ecologist or water quality manager in the Chesapeake Bay Region, 
more likely than not, their thoughts turn to a surface scum of 
cyanobacteria in the tidal freshwater section of the Potomac 
River. For many, these blooms have come to epitomize the un¬ 
desirable effects of eutrophication in the Chesapeake Bay Re¬ 
gion. 

What are cyanobacteria? Why do they appear in such high 
concentrations in the certain parts of the estuary at certain 
times of the year? Can we expect similar occurrences in the 
future in saline portions of the Chesapeake Bay? Are there cya¬ 
nobacteria in the more saline portions of the Bay and, if so, 
what role do they play in the plankton community? These are 
some of the questions I hope to answer. 

Cyanobacteria are photosynthetic organisms which occur in a 
variety of morphological types including single cells measuring 
only a micrometer in diameter, chains of single cells, colonies 
of single cells held together by a mucoid-like substance, fila¬ 
ments composed of many cells, and aggregates of filaments rang¬ 
ing in size from loosely aggregated tufts barely visible to the 
naked eye, to "mats" of filaments measuring several centimeters 
thick. Cyanobacteria are widely distributed in both marine and 
freshwater habitats. My comments today will address only plank¬ 
tonic cyanobacteria, those forms which spend all of most of 
their life cycle suspended in the water column. I will ignore 
the variety of cyanobacteria found, often in abundance, on es¬ 
tuarine and salt pond sediments, and attached to salt marsh 
plants, submerged aquatic vegetation, shells, pilings, or almost 
any solid substrate in the marine environment. 

Some of the pertinent physiological, morphological charac¬ 
teristics of cyanobacteria are listed in Table I and include: 

1. A cellular structure fundamentally similar to that of 
bacteria which places them with bacteria in the group of organ¬ 
isms known as prokaryotes. It is this characteristic which ac¬ 
counts for the commonly used term cyanobacteria. 


99 



Physiological and Morphological Characteristics of 
Cyanobacteria 


1 . 

2 . 


Prokaryotic Cellular Structure. 


Photosynthesis: 


CO2 + Light , 
Chlorophyll CH2 02 


3. Vertical Motility and Depth Regulation Via 
Internal Gas Vacuoles. 


4. Nitrogen Fixation: 

N2 .> Biomass and Metabolism 


Table I 


100 




2. Cyanobacteria are photosynthetic. They use light energy 

and chlorophyll-a to convert carbon dioxide into cellular bio¬ 
mass and in the process produce oxygen. This process is es¬ 
sentially identical to photosynthesis in terrestrial plants and 
all other marine and freshwater algae. It is this characteris¬ 
tic which accounts for the other commonly used name for this 
group: blue-green algae. 

3. Although lacking external means of motility such as 
flagella or cilia, some cyanobacteria contain intracellular gas 
vacuoles. By regulating the number of these internal, gas-fill¬ 
ed vesicles, cyanobacteria are capable of vertical rates of mi¬ 
gration that rank among the highest observed for algae, up to 
2-3 m hr 1 . 

4. Unlike other algae, certain species of cyanobacteria are 
capable of utilizing nitrogen gas from the atmosphere for bio¬ 
mass and metabolic processes. Species which are capable of nit¬ 
rogen fixation are not dependent on inorganic forms of nitrogen 
found in their environment such as nitrate, nitrite, or ammonium, 
which are required by other algae. 

Although an abundant supply of nitrogen and phosphorus is 
necessary to support the high algal biomass which occurs in sum¬ 
mer, cyanobacteria blooms, it appears that certain adaptive re¬ 
sponses of the principal bloom-forming cyanobacteria, Micro ¬ 
cystis aeruginosa . are a more immediate cause of surface scum 
formation. As temperature and light availability increase in 
the spring and early summer, algal growth rates increase and 
algal biomass accumulates in the water column. Fueled by an 
abundance of nutrients, algae may become so dense that light in 
the water column is decreased by self-shading, and/or carbon 
dioxide availability is decreased by an excess of demand over 
supply. Microcystis aeruginosa has been shown to respond to 
both of these conditions by increasing its bouyancy and floating 
to the surface where the availability of both light and carbon 
dioxide are maximal (Paerl and Ustach, 1982). Unlike other al¬ 
gae which are actually inhibited by summer surface light inten¬ 
sities, M. aeruginosa responds to high light intensities by pro¬ 
ducing a pigment which protects its photosynthetic apparatus 
from the deleterious effects of too much light (Paerl et al., 
1983) . It is this unusual capability of M. aeruginosa to resist 
and thereby exploit high surface light intensities which is re¬ 
sponsible for their dense accumulation at the surface. Coinci¬ 
dent with this migration to the air-water interface, M. aeru ¬ 
ginosa changes its morphology from individual small cells to a 
colonial form comprised of thousands of cells in a mucous en¬ 
velope. A secondary but significant effect of surface scum 
formation is that light availability to more desirable algae 
species distributed throughout the water column is decreased 
with a consequent reduction in their growth and abundance. 


101 










In studies of North Carolina estuaries, Paerl (1982, 1983) 
has demonstrated that cyanobacteria require quiescent or stable 
water conditions in order to form surface scums or blooms. In 
the tidal fresh water region of rivers, water column stability 
is enhanced by a reduction in river flow, by high solar radia¬ 
tion which leads to thermal stratification, and by decreased 
winds. The effect of these factors on bloom formation in the 
tidal Potomac is emphasized in a study by M.P. Sullivan (1985) 
at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. He re¬ 
viewed 36 years of hydrometeorological data for the Potomac Ri¬ 
ver and developed an environmental index which included all of 
the aforementioned factors. As shown in Figure 1, the index, 
which ranges from a highly unfavorable -6 (high flow, high wind, 
low solar radiation and temperature) to a highly favorable +6 
(low flow, low wind, high temperature and solar radiation), cor¬ 
relates well with average summer algal biomass determined from 
twelve summer blooms since 1965. Bloom severity is quantified 
as average surface water chlorophyll-a values from the upper 70 
kilometers (km) of the tidal Potomac River. These data il¬ 
lustrate that hydrometeorological processes play a significant 
role in regulating bloom phenomenon and must be considered along 
with nutrient loading data in evaluating historical trends of 
blooms. Sullivan further suggests that the particularly severe 
and unexpected cyanobacteria! bloom of 1983 may have resulted 
primarily from a highly unusual combination of low wind, high 
solar radiation and temperature, and low river flow which oc¬ 
curred during that summer. According to his probability analy¬ 
sis from 36 years of data, the 1983 index value of ca. 5.5 will 
occur only about 3 times in a hundred years. 

The magnitude of the 1983 Potomac River bloom illustrates 
that the system still harbors sufficient nutrients to support an 
abundant algal biomass. The most likely source of nutrients for 
the 1983 bloom appears to have been the sediments and not direct 
point source additions. The Expert Panel, convened to study the 
1983 bloom, hypothesized that a high pH, resulting from the 
depletion of carbon dioxide from the water column following high 
daily rates of photosynthesis, increased the flux of phosphorus 
from the sediments to the water column where it was available 
for phytoplankton growth (Expert Panel, 1985). Research this 
past year by Sybil Seitzinger at the Philadelphia Academy of 
Natural Sciences, who measured the rate of phosphorus release 
from isolated, intact sediment cores from the Potomac River 
subjected to various levels of pH, supports this hypothesis. 

Can we expect surface scums of cyanobacteria to occur down¬ 
stream in high salinity regions of the estuary if nutrient and 
other environmental conditions in those regions become favorable 
for bloom formation? Recent research by Paerl et al. (1984) in 
North Carolina and Kevin Sellner working in the Potomac River 


102 



Alga* Enc our a ©•men* Index 


Figure 1 


R u. iati ° n u h . i l p bet ™ een Index and the summer average 
chlorophyll a values for the upper 70 km of the tidal 
Potomac for 12 years. 


103 



suggest that this is not likely to occur. In both laboratories, 
natural populations of freshwater bloom-forming cyanobacteria 
exposed to salinities as low as 5 o/oo were severely inhibited 
in terms of photosynthesis. 

If bloom-forming cyanobacteria from freshwater regions 
won't survive in moderate and high salinities, can we expect to 
find significant populations of cyanobacteria in the Chesapeake 
Bay? Until a few years ago, most phytoplankton ecologists 
thought that cyanobacteria were not an important component of 
marine phytoplankton communities. However, with the advent of 
epifluorescent microscopy, it quickly became apparent that there 
was an abundant and ubiquitous population of small (ca. 1 urn 
diameter) coccoid cyanobacteria in the world's oceans (Johnson 
and Sieburth, 1979; Waterbury et al., 1979), and that these 
small cyanobacteria were significant contributors to oceanic 
primary production (Li et al., 1983; Platt et al., 1983). Using 
epifluorescent microscopy, coccoid cyanobacteria fluoresce a 
bright crimson-red color under green light excitation while some 
forms fluoresce a gold-orange color under bluelight excitation 
(Haas, 1982). Both forms are easily and accurately quantified 
by this technique. 

Coccoid cyanobacteria in the lower Chesapeake Bay plankton 
community are most abundant during the summer months when water 
temperatures are highest, as shown in Figure 2, which depicts 
phytoplankton abundance data collected by Harold Marshall of Old 
Dominion University at stations in the lower Bay and in the 
lower James River during 1982-83. The cell counts were made 
using inverted microscopy. The data show that picoplankton 
(phytoplankton less than 2 urn in diameter and in this case domi¬ 
nated by cyanobacteria) reached peak abundances of ca. 15xl0 3 
ml -1 during July, August, and September at both stations. The 
lower James River station also illustrates the sequence of a 
spring bloom of relatively large diatoms preceeding the summer 
maximum of picoplankton. 

Figure 3 shows cyanobacterial abundance along the salinity 
gradient of the lower Bay and James River for August 1983. The 
data are from a transect starting in the lower Bay near Cape 
Charles (salinity 23 o/oo), progressing into Hampton Roads (0 km 
and 22 o/oo) and continuing about 75 km upriver past Jamestown 
Island (2 o/oo). Samples were collected from ca. 1 meter depth 
at each station for 14 consecutive days, except for the Cape 
Charles station which was sampled only four times. Cell counts 
were made with epifluorescent microscopy and for the purposes of 
this presentation, the counts for all days were averaged and a 
standard error depicted. In the lower Bay near the Eastern 
Shore, total cyanobacterial counts were nearly 10 6 ml -1 with 
total abundances not changing appreciably upriver. The propor¬ 
tion of orange fluorescing cells, which are the only type found 


104 




Figure 2 


Combined surface and bottom averages for total cell 

concentrations of picoplankton (-), diatoms (-), 

and cryptomonads (.) at lower Bay stations (A), 

and Hampton Roads stations (B). 


105 





















CEUS/ML x 10C4; 


CHES. BAY — JAMES RIVER 



Figure 3 


Coccoid cyanobacteria concentrations ( + --- + ) and percent 
orange fluorescing cyanobacteria (a—0) j n the lower 
Chesapeake Bay and James River. Triangles denote 
standard of the mean. 


106 










in oceanic waters, is highest (ca. 45%) at the highest salinity 
and decreases rapidly to zero percent at about 10 o/oo. These 
are extremely high cell numbers for phytoplankton and consider¬ 
ing the moderate levels of chlorophyll observed in the James Ri¬ 
ver during this period (ca. 10-13 ug l 1 ), cyanobacteria pro¬ 
bably accounted for most of the primary production. The dif¬ 
ferences in cyanobacterial abundances in the Lower Bay for 
August 1983 depicted in Figures 2 and 3 probably reflects the 
reduced efficiency of inverted microscopy to accurately count 
these small cells. Since there is no historical record for cya¬ 
nobacterial abundances in the Chesapeake Bay plankton, it is 
difficult to speculate if these high concentrations of cyano¬ 
bacteria observed with epifluorescent microscopy represent a 
"normal" condition or long-term response to nutrient enrichment. 

The presence of high numbers of coccoid cyanobacteria has 
implications for other aspects of the plankton ecosystem. Phyto¬ 
plankton constitute the base of the food web in the Chesapeake 
Bay; they are the primary source of fixed carbon which supports 
all the higher trophic levels. This process is illustrated in 
Figure 4 which depicts the quintessential marine food chain 
starting with a large diatom consumed by a copepod which in turn 
is consumed by a planktivorous fish consumed by a top 
carnivore. With a large phytoplankton at the base, only one 
intermediate level is needed before a fish gets its food. 

However, in a plankton ecosystem where coccoid cyanobacteria 
dominate, this is not the case. Figure 5 depicts the trophic 
relationships thought to dominate in the North Pacific Gyre 
where coccoid cyanobacteria dominate the phytoplankton, and I 
believe it is a realistic representation of trophic processes in 
the Lower Chesapeake Bay during the summer months. Here we see 
cyanobacteria being consumed by protozoan flagellates which, in 
turn, are consumed by a ciliate. This ciliate may then be 
consumed by a copepod. Compared to the Figure 4, where there 
was only one step between a phytoplankter and a copepod, there 
are now potentially two levels. Since each added level in a 
food chain or web necessarily reduces the amount of energy 
reaching the higher trophic levels, the presence of substantial 
numbers of picophytoplankton at the base of the food web may 
reduce production or alter the species composition at the higher 
levels. 

Protozoan grazing of cyanobacteria in the Chesapeake Bay 
has been demonstrated (Haas, 1982) and Hans Paerl has described 
protozoans grazing the interior of a M. aeruginosa colony in a 
tidal freshwater habitat. 


107 




Figure 4 


A typical microplankton food chain for the Chesapeake Bay. 


108 




MICRO- FOOD WEB 



Figure 5 


Diagram of probable food web linkages among plankton 
organisms in the North Pacific. 


109 


A cyanobacterial-based food web may have significant imp¬ 
lications for nutrient cycles in estuaries. For example, dia¬ 
toms are generally large cells which may sink rapidly out of the 
euphotic zone to the sediments. Furthermore, diatoms are grazed 
primarily by copepods which produce fecal pellets containing 
significant amounts of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus. These 
pellets sink rapidly to the sediments where they are likely to 
be remineralized to forms of nitrogen and phosphorus which, 
under suitable conditions, leave the sediments and are once 
again available to the phytoplankton. This may be a long-term 
cycle and because of the net up-estuary flow of bottom water in 
estuaries, the nutrients tend to be retained in the estuary 
rather than being flushed out. In contrast, cyanobacteria are 
small and do not sink out of the euphotic zone. Furthermore, 
they are grazed primarily by protozoans which excrete soluble 
nitrogenous waste products which are immediately available for 
phytoplankton use. This rapid recycling of nutrients may, in 
fact, help to maintain cyanobacterial blooms. However, by being 
retained in the surface waters, nutrients are more likely to be 
flushed out of the system by down-estuary surface flows. Thus, 
nutrient cycles may differ with respect to the principal agents 
of recycling, and the sites and rates of recycling between 
phytoplankton communities dominated by coccoid cyanobacteria and 
those dominated by larger phytoplankton. 

In conclusion, it appears that the tidal freshwater Potomac 
River still contains sufficient nutrients to support a major 
bloom. It is apparent that in future work in this region, more 
attention must be accorded to geochemical and biological pro¬ 
cesses which regulate the flux of nutrients between the sediment 
and water column. The recent emphasis in sediment processes re¬ 
lated to nutrient cycling illustrates the need to consider the 
total ecosystem when considering plankton processes. Experiments 
on phytoplankton-nutrient interactions may be performed in bot¬ 
tles, but it is important to remember that phytoplankton don't 
live in bottles; they exist as part of a complex ecosystem with 
air-water and sediment-water interfaces and are subject to meteo¬ 
rological as well as hydrologic influences. 

In the more saline portions of the Chesapeake Bay, I think 
we are only beginning to realize the potentially important role 
played by cyanobacteria in planktonic processes. Their contri¬ 
bution to primary production during the warmer months and their 
impact on food chain and nutrient recycling processes are likely 
to be substantial. It is unfortunate that the recently insti¬ 
tuted Chesapeake Bay phytoplankton monitoring programs in both 
Maryland and Virginia, which are designed to provide baseline 
data on phytoplankton abundance and composition into the 21st 
century, are not using enumeration techniques which are capable 
of accurately counting cyanobacteria. 


110 


1—I 


CT t 

i—i— 



Processes 


Figure 6 

Possible routes of phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) 
recycling in a hypothetical two-layer estuarine system. 


Ill 











Acknowledgements 

We would like to thank Drs. S. Seitzinger, H. Marshall, and 
K. Sellner for allowing us to use their unpublished data. 


112 



REFERENCES 


Expert Panel. 1985. The 1983 Algal Bloom in the Potomac 

Estuary. A Report Prepared for the Potomac Strategy/EPA 
Management Committee. March 14, 1985. 

Haas, L.W. 1982. Improved Epifluorescent Microscopy for Obser¬ 
ving Planktonic Micro-Organisms. Ann. Inst. Oceanogr., 

58(S):261-266. 

Johnson, P.W. and J. McN. Sieburth. 1979. Coccoid Cyanobacte¬ 
ria in the Sea: A Ubiquitous and Diverse Phototrophic Bio¬ 
mass. Limnol. Oceanogr. 24:928-935. 

Li, W.K., D. V. Subba Rao, W.G. Harrison, J.C. Smith, J.J. Cul¬ 
len, B. Irwin, and T. Platt. 1983. Autotrophic Picoplank- 
ton in the Tropical Ocean. Science 219:292-295. 

Paerl, H.W. 1982. Environmental Factors Promoting and Regu¬ 
lating N 2 Fixing Blue-Green Algal Blooms in the Chowan 
River, Univ. of North Carolina Water Resources Research 
Institute No. 176. 65 pp. 

Paerl, H.W. 1983. Factors Regulating Nuisance Blue-Green Algal 
Bloom Potentials in the Lower Neuse River, Univ. of North 
Carolina Water Resources Research Institute No. 188. 48 pp. 

Paerl, H.W. and J.F. Ustach. 1982. Blue-Green Algae Scums: An 
Explanation for Their Occurance During Freshwater Blooms. 
Limnol. Oceanogr. 21:212-217. 

Paerl, H.W., J. Tucker, and P.T. Bland. 1983. Carotenoid En¬ 
hancement and It's Role in Maintaining Blue-Green Algal 
( Microcystis Aeruginosa ) Surface Blooms. Limnol. Oceanogr. 
28:847-857. 


Paerl, H.W., P.T. Bland, J.H. Blackwell, and N.D. Bowles. 

1984. The Effects of Salinity on the Potential of a Blue- 
Green Algal ( Microcystis Aeruginosa ) Bloom in the Neuse 
River Estuary, University of North Carolina Sea Grant Pro¬ 
gram Working Paper 84-1. 28 pp. 

Platt, T., D.V. Subba Rao, and B. Irwin. 1983. Photosynthe¬ 
sis of Picoplankton in the Oligotrophic Ocean. Nature 
301:702-704. 

Sullivan, M.P. 1985. The Potomac Algae Bloom of 1983: An 
Evaluation of the Hydrometeorological Origin of Blooms. 
Manuscript in Preparation. 

Waterbury, J.B., S.W. Watson, R.L. Guillard, and L.E. Brand. 
1979. Widespread Occurrence of Unicellular Marine 
Planktonic Cyanobacteria. Nature 277:293-294. 


113 


















































MANAGEMENT ISSUES 


115 















CASE STUDY: POTOMAC RIVER - BETTER OR WORSE? 


by 

Drs. James P. Bennett and Edward Callender 
United States Geological Survey 


Abstract 

In the 30 years preceding 1985, approximately $1 billion was 
spent on upgrading sewage treatment plant performance in an 
effort to improve water quality conditions in the tidally 
influenced Potomac River near Washington, D.C. Although algae 
blooms can still occur when hydrologic and weather conditions 
are favorable, dissolved oxygen conditions in the tidal-fresh 
portion of the river are greatly improved. The greater than 
natural present-day supply of nutrients to the estuary has 
aggravated the naturally-occurring phenomenon of summertime 
bottom water anoxia. It is not clear that recent cleanup 
efforts have had any effects on the phenonmenon, and in fact the 
large reservoir of nutrients in the bottom sediments should 
prevent the effects of cleanup from becoming evident for some 
time. The recent resurgence of submersed vegetation in the 
tidal-fresh portion of the river has a potential to alter 
nutrient budgets throughout the influenced portion and appears 
to have had a positive effect on the tidally water quality. 

Dr. Bennett: A number of the very difficult technical is¬ 
sues that I was concerned about being able to present in 20 min¬ 
utes have been brilliantly covered earlier? therefore, I will 
proceed right to the heart of the issues. 

I will address three different topics in this presentation. 
First, better or worse in the tidal river? second, better or 
worse in the estuary? and third, some recent developments that 
may well invalidate extrapolating these conditions into the 
future. In the USGS study, the tidal river extends from Chain 
Bridge near D.C. to Quantico? and the estuarine zone extends 
from Morgantown, Maryland, to the mouth on the Chesapeake Bay. 

In the past 20 years, approximately one billion dollars have 
been spent on construction and improvement of the sewage treat¬ 
ment plant capabilities in the District of Columbia. As you saw 
in one of the earlier presentations this morning, probably the 
most advanced waste treatment facility, certainly the largest 
advanced waste treatment plant in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 
is in the District of Columbia. Although Figure 1 shows an ap¬ 
proximate 2.5 fold increase in waste-water flow in the last 30 
years, 5 day B.O.D. and total phosphorous, both, have decreased 
markedly over that time span. At the same time, total nitrogen 
loading has been essentially constant since 1970. Now looking 
at the River, what has that billion dollars bought us? 


117 



Tonnes per day Cubic Meters per second 




Total Nitrogen 



Total Phosphorous 



Year 


Figure 1 History of Sewage Treatments Plant Loads to Tidal 
Potomac River. 


118 






The next four figures present longitudinal profiles showing 
the evolution over time of critical water quality parameters in 
the segment of the River between Chain Bridge and the U.S. High¬ 
way 301 Bridge (Morgantown). All data were collected during 
August and as nearly as possible at comparable discharges. In 
Figure 2, the earlier profiles show very low dissolved oxygen 
immediately downstream from the Washington, D.C. area. More 
recent profiles all show improved conditions. That is the pri¬ 
mary result of the work that's gone on in the D.C. area sewage 
treatment plants in the last 20 years. The dissolved ammonia 
profiles in Figure 3 show a great improvement in the ammonia 
picture following bringing on line the nitrification facility at 
the Blue Plains sewage treatment plant between 1980 and 1981. 
Figure 4 shows total phosphorous as "P." The 1968 profile shows 
P values much greater than any of the others and the gradual 
improvement has continued since 1977. 

Figure 5, the final longitudinal profile shows chlorophyll- 
a. The observation was made earlier that it is much more diffi¬ 
cult to illustrate the cause-and-effect relationships governing 
these longitudinal profiles. The reason being, that there is no 
significant nutrient limitation on chlorophyll-a in the tidal 
river, at any rate, until chlorophyll-a concentrations of bloom 
proportions are reached. 

We have developed a phytoplankton growth index, which in¬ 
corporates all of the independent variables that were discussed 
in the previous presentation. In addition, we included a mea¬ 
sure of spring-time inflow which improves the predictive capa¬ 
bility of the index. Figure 6 gives a plot of index values and 
descriptions of the independent variables. 

In the tidal river the answer to the question of better or 
worse is, with respect to dissolved oxygen, much better. With 
regard to the occurrence of alga blooms, it depends on hydro- 
logic factors, on sunlight, on temperature, and on spring-time 
inflow rather than what we've been able to do with regard to 
reducing nutrients. We haven't reached a point where there is 
any significant nutrient limitation at least until after bloom 
conditions are well established. Here also, the answer to the 
question better or worse is better because modern-day blooms 
haven't been accompanied by the periods of anoxic degradation 
that were common in the 1960s. 

There has been considerable discussion of nutrients here. 
Before I proceed to the estuary, I would like to briefly address 
nutrient budgets, where the nutrients come from, and where they 
go in the Potomac River. The first column in Figure 7 shows the 


119 


Dissolved Oxygen in rng/| 



o 


10 


20 30 40 50 

River Mile 


60 


Figure 2 Longitudinal Profiles of Dissolved Oxvaen, 
1968-1985. 


120 














|/6iu uj n so fHN pdA|OSSjQ 


121 


River Mile 











Figure 4 Longitudinal Profiles of Total Phosphorous, 1968-1983. 



•OPHB IOC 


Id puoiAjoh 


_o 


oojjUDno 


po»H UDipui 


uouj» A ’W- 


oppuox»ry 


jg |D|J0UJ«n 


jg ujDMoi-o 


_o 


- o 


|/6uj ui d sd snojoqdsoqd \°\°1 


122 


River Mile 












Figure 5 Longitudinal Profiles of Chlorophyll-a, 1968-1983. 


123 











Lute-August Chlorophyll 



Gl = tRI*SI*TI] Ju|y [RI*SI*TI] Aug ll 

Rl = Retention Index = (Ret time)/(Ave ret time) 

SI = Sunlight Index = Min sun/Ave min sun 

Tl = Temperature index = Water temp/Ave water temp 

II = Inflow Index = Spring inflow—January through May 


Figure 6 Late-August Phytoplankton Chlorophyll-a Growth Index 
for the Lower Tidal-fresh Potomac River. 


124 



Amool Looding and Percentage® by Source and Sink 


Sedieent 


Dissolved Silica 


Total Phoephorom 


Total Nitrogen 



Figure 7 Summary of Nutrient and Sediment Sources and Sinks by 
Percentage. 


125 























amounts of various nutrients entering the tidally influenced 
Potomac River, during the water years 1979 to 1981 (i.e., Octo¬ 
ber 1978 through September 1981). In this figure, the "River" 
source refers to the watershed upstream of Washington, D.C.; the 
"Non-Point" source refers to all direct runoff and tributary 
inflow below Washington; and "Point" refers to sewage treatment 
plants. 

Restricting this discussion to total phosphorus and total 
nitrogen, approximately one quarter of each comes from non-point 
sources; that is, from the sewage treatment plants. Approxi¬ 
mately half of the supply of each nutrient comes from the 
"River" source and the remaining quarter from local runoff. It 
is important to remember that only 25 percent of total nitrogen 
and total phosphorus come from sewage treatment plants; the 
remainder comes from sources that are much more difficult to 
control. 

Where do nutrients go? Roughly 75 percent of both of these 
nutrients are retained within the system or, in the case of 
nitrogen, denitrified out of the water column. Therefore, be¬ 
tween the head of tide at Chain Bridge and the Chesapeake Bay, 
the Potomac Tidal River and Estuary remove about 75 percent of 
those two nutrients. Most of that removal occurs in the estu¬ 
ary . 


Consider the estuary and recall earlier presentations that 
showed that these nutrients have been collecting in the estu¬ 
arine bottom sediments for quite a number of years. These bot¬ 
tom sediment nutrients are available for recycling during sum¬ 
mertime and produce food for the algae. USGS observations have 
shown that the organic carbon in the bottom sediments changes in 
composition between U.S. Highway 301 Bridge and the mouth of the 
estuary from essentially terrestrial in origin to mostly marine 
in origin. This lends support to the statement made earlier 
that an appreciable fraction of the carbon that produces the 
bottom-water anoxia is grown in place. 

Figure 8 summarizes the results of an in-depth reconnais¬ 
sance conducted by the USGS during the summer of 1984. The 
panel in the lower left shows the proportion of the volume of 
the estuary that was anoxic during the time period from April 
through October. Approximately, 20 percent was anoxic at the 
peak, and this volume covered 30 percent of the bottom area. 

This is obviously an extensive problem. 

Because nutrient removal efforts in the upper part of the 
river have essentially not influenced the nitrogen supply, what 
we've done so far has done nothing and will not do anything to 
significantly alter this situation. I can say this because USGS 
observations from the 1984 summer indicate that if there is a 
limiting nutrient, it is nitrogen. In so far as the estuary 


126 


Percentage Thousands of Tonnes 


Dissolved Oxygen 


Salt 




1984 



Average Temperature 



10 H -1-1-T-T-1-T- 

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 


1984 


Figure 8 Summertime 1984 Time Histories of Amounts of Oxygen 
and Salt, and Average Temperature in the Potomac 
Estuary, Cobb Island to Chesapeake Bay. 


127 









receives more than its "natural" supply of nitrogen then, as was 
mentioned earlier, it was worse than "the natural situation." I 
say this because of the tremedous reserve of nitrogen in the 
bottom sediments, improvements due to reduction of the nitrogen 
supply will take an appreciable length of time to become 
apparent. 

I'd also like to reinforce the point made earlier concern¬ 
ing the variability of the extent of anoxia. Stratification, a 
physical phenomenon, is very important in determining how early 
it develops and how long it lasts. During the high inflow sum¬ 
mer of 1984, stratification developed early and was strong 
throughout the season. USGS observations have been that anoxia 
was much more extensive during 1984 than in the summer of 1985, 
which was a low-flow summer. 

The remainder of this presentation deals with conditions 
developing now in the tidal river which have a potential to 
radically alter the nutrient budget picture just presented. 

Since 1983, there has been a major resurgence of the amount of 
submersed aquatic vegetation in the tidal river. Between each 
of the summers 1983 to 1984 and 1984 to 1985, there has been an 
approximate ten-fold increase in the amounts of submersed 
aquatic vegetation growing in the tidal river. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, calculated that the 
plants have the potential to cover 33,000 acres in the tidal 
fresh part of the Potomac River. This is about two-thirds of 
the river bottom between Quantico and, say, Haines Point. The 
plants may be present from as early as late May through mid- 
November. Considering the 33,000 acre figure and using pre¬ 
liminary estimates of the density of the biomass cover from 1985 
USGS submersed vegetation surveys, one can conclude that the 
biomass that could be produced is on the order of ten times what 
was contained in the algae bloom of 1983. This is a significant 
amount of biomass and it could have quite a major effect on the 
water quality conditions in the river. This biomass would tie 
up a 12 to 40 day (depending on which author's figures on how 
much phosphorous is contained on the average in these plants) 
supply of the sewage treatment plant supplied nitrogen and a 30 
to 150 day supply of the sewage treatment plant supplied 
phosphorous. Again the potential to significantly impact the 
water quality conditions is obvious. 

The plants also significantly alter the water s clarity. 

In areas where there are large patches of vegetation, the bottom 
is clearly visible in 5 feet of water. Whereas, in earlier 
years, visibility was limited to a few inches. There has also 
been a major change in wildlife in this area; large numbers of 


128 


sprey, Canadian geese, and ducks are present. Although marina 
operators are not too happy about this development, in general, 
water quality conditions seem to have improved with the appear¬ 
ance of the SAV. 

In summary then, the billion or so dollars that were spent 
on improving the STP treatment capabilities in the D.C. area 
have produced a better effect, a positive effect, with respect 
to dissolved oxygen conditions. However, there still doesn't 
appear to be enough nutrient removal to significantly limit 
algae blooms. In the estuary the nutrient cycling and the 
anoxia have not been significantly affected by recent cleanup 
efforts. And I think we're still waiting on the verdict on the 
reappearance of the submersed vegetation. 

Thank you. 


129 































































ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: NEW TECHNIQUES 


by 

Dr. Walter R. Boynton 
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory 

Dr. Boynton: As my presentation will demonstrate today, 
it's going to be apparent that most researchers and other people 
interested in Chesapeake Bay deal with the same estuary and 
interpret it in different ways. And that can be both 
instructive as well as amusing. 

Let me make a few quick introductory points here. One is 
that throughout the world and throughout the United States 
estuaries are common. It's something that we see all over our 
landscape. They are, in addition, close to metropolitan areas, 
close to people, and they’re very productive. And because 
they're close to us and because they're productive and valuable, 
we have major interests in watching the patterns that emerge 
over periods of time. 

This is sort of the union card around here I think. In any 
case, I would like to make the additional point that problems 
either real or perceived that have appeared in the Chesapeake 
and its tributaries are problems similar to those seen in 
estuaries around the world. So in some ways it's gratifying 
that we're not dealing with some sort of unique environmental 
problem; it's one that's shared by many around the world. 

So with that little bit of introduction, I have to talk 
about monitoring and some approaches to monitoring. In 
particular, I’m going to talk about some of the things that 
we've considered in developing one of the newer monitoring 
programs that's currently operating in Chesapeake Bay, and this 
is one that's supported by the Office of Environmental Programs 
(OEP), State of Maryland. 

In the view of many people associated with that program, 
some of the key goals have to do with the description of trends 
of important variables — meaning variables that we can, through 
mental or more formal models, relate to the status of the 
environment and relate also to possible management strategies. 
Secondly, also of real importance, is the detection of 
significant differences in both time and space and how they 
relate to these important descriptors of the environment. I 
might add here that this is something in the past we may have 
fallen down on a little bit or, perhaps, simply have not done as 
well as we could have done. And the last is synthesis of 


131 




monitoring data into forms that are useful to resource managers 
— and I mean — in terms of water quality models, statistical 
relationships, input/output models, one could throw in various 
types of budgets, and so forth. 

This is probably one of the more difficult tasks to 
actually accomplish. Throughout the Bay Region and various 
buildings here and there I'm told that there are these large 
data bases that are either being developed or are developed and 
so forth. And while that's good and perhaps it's absolutely 
necessary, the reason for doing all of this storage and so forth 
is so that we can try to put some of these pieces of information 
together in coherent pictures that are useful in addressing the 
management issues of the Bay. 

Let me try to provide a little bit more background on the 
notions of monitoring in estuaries, in particular Chesapeake 
Bay. And I have three points to make. 

Estuaries are complex. There are lots of components. 

There are the conflicts in the resource uses that are impacting 
the environment and the environmental impact on these resource 
issues. Take for example, the Patuxent River Basin where 
there's a power plant, electricity being generated, recreation, 
and commercial fishing's going on. There are timberlands, which 
have different runoff characteristics than agricultural activi¬ 
ties. Sewage discharges, treatment and so on is another feature 
of the landscape. And one of the things I've always found 
interesting about some of these basins is that, for example, the 
Patuxent River is also an important source for drinking water. 

So we go from drinking water to sewage treatment to fisheries, 
recreation and so forth. So we're dealing with fairly complex 
systems and many of these activities have important inputs 
modifying the water quality and habitat conditions. 

The second point is that these systems are variable. The 
connection between the land and the water, I think, to a large 
extent is responsible for this. And the variability takes place 
over many different time scales, which need to, of course, be 
recognized for monitoring programs. The Patuxent River Basin 
time scales show gross characteristics of change. 

Another important indicator of change in the Chesapeake Bay 
variability is in the long-term record of freshwater flow to the 
Bay. And if you're an ecologist, you can visualize patterns 
where there seems to be periods of low freshwater flow and high 
freshwater flow. Variability is an important consideration. 


132 


There are some things that the SAV group at the University 
of Maryland put together; change in terms of atrazine, a herbi¬ 
cide, being used in the basin; variability in the Susquehanna 
River flow; some notions of sediment yield in the Patuxent River 
Basin being very possibly influenced by both construction acti¬ 
vities and practices through several decades; Hurricane Agnes, a 
natural event; fertilizer sales from Maryland; again, change in 
general practices; and sewage discharge from Washington. 

So what I'm saying here is that within the context of moni¬ 
toring characteristics of the Bay, there are important forcing 
functions, some of them natural, some of them man-influenced 
that are also changing. 

Monitoring programs, in our view, need to be able to sort 
out the natural variability, and I've given you some examples of 
that, from the types of change that is induced by human activi¬ 
ties. If we can't do that, then we have a real problem in con¬ 
tinuing to monitor. 

We also need to be able to detect and reasonably assign 
changes in habitat quality or water quality conditions to manage¬ 
ment activities. Again, we're interested in being able to — it 
seems necessary, rather — to be able to detect changes in 
inputs and then from soup to nuts, if you will, in the 
biological food web situation. 

And lastly, we need to be able to take some of these nice 
little patterns for monitoring, and as I said before and as I 
say again, be able to synthesize these various and sundry 
factors influencing the things we're concerned about in a way 
that's useful for the management community. 

Various people have showed some examples of monitoring; I 
wanted to show you a few more that have been going on in the Bay 
Region for a number of years. One of them, for example, is an 
anadromous fish survey that's been conducted since the early 
1950s. So there's some sense of continuity there. 

Another program of monitoring which has changed its form a 
bit over the years is that of submerged aquatic vegetation sam¬ 
pling. And it shows the pattern in sea grass abundance in the 
Upper Chesapeake Bay. 

As you know, and I'll show you explicitly in a few minutes, 
there's lots of different kinds of monitoring going on here. 

Some of it is of relevance to the Chesapeake Bay, but the moni¬ 
toring takes place in the Canadian Artie, as well as through the 
flyways. For example, a bit of synthesis in terms of monitoring 


133 


wherein the relative abundance of vascular plants can be cor¬ 
related with two species of dabbling duck abundance as percent¬ 
ages of the North American population for a number of years. 
Again, some continuity, a little bit of synthesis and the sug¬ 
gestion that perhaps the relative abundance of ducks in the 
Chesapeake, those that have some relationship to sea grass, is 
in fact related to sea grass abundance. You can see, in the re¬ 
cent years, when the decline was very intense, redhead abundance 
was really quite low. 

There's considerable room for improvement in our monitor¬ 
ing, to say the least. There are data gaps. I might ask where 
are the data from 1939, 1940, 1941, 1965, 1968 and so forth? 

And the fact of the matter is, for many of these variables, 
dissolved oxygen being an obvious important one, they simply 
don't exist. So one area I think that the monitoring community, 
scientific community as well, ought to be very keyed on is this 
notion of continuity in measurements. That's one place I think 
we can really improve. And I'll say a few more things about 
that in a moment. 

Throughout the day we've seen all kinds of activities that 
are occurring in the Chesapeake Bay. And I took some time and 
made a number of phone calls and listed what I call examples of 
Chesapeake Bay monitoring programs. Early on in my search, it 
became very clear to me, without a very large effort, I wasn't 
going to be able to list them all. I have a few points to make 
here. One is that there is an awful lot of activity going on 
that can be construed to be monitoring or is in fact called 
monitoring. 

The second point is that, and this is good in our view, 
we're worried about things like freshwater inflow, a forcing 
function on the Bay. People are interested in trying to assess 
migratory waterfowl, one of the end products of the Bay, which 
has substantial economic interest. 

And one could go on with examples of where people are mea¬ 
suring rate of input, where they are measuring the relative abun 
dance of characters that are deemed important in an estuarine 
system. 

Lastly, there are all types of measurement schedules. Some 
of them by and large seem to be quite appropriate; others might 
need a little more fine tuning, but they range from the decades 
to the hours. And I'll say a bit more about that in a second. 

In developing the OEP Monitoring Program, we considered 
several generic issues at some length that I thought might be of 
interest to this audience when they're considering, perhaps, put 
ting monitoring programs together. 


134 


One of the characteristics of monitoring programs, I don't 
mean to embarrass anybody, particularly myself, is that it seems 
that measurements have to be reasonably simple. Monitoring pro¬ 
grams need to go on and on and on in order to develop the type 
of trends that are interpretable and in which we can have some 
confidence. 

These measurements need to be replicated so we can see and 
detect differences. It would be outrageously expensive, pos¬ 
sibly not even technically feasible, to on a very routine basis 
do some very "Jet Jackson" like things. It is probably impor¬ 
tant that some of these sophisticated measurements are made to 
resolve and help us interpret monitoring; but it seems to us 
that basically monitoring measurements made in the Bay need to 
be reasonably simple because they're the ones that we can reason¬ 
ably afford and that can be made on a routine basis. 

Consideration of time and space scales has gotten a lot of 
press lately. And it seems to me from my view of these moni¬ 
toring programs that the idea is sinking in that one cannot go 
out and measure all variables with the same spatial and time 
intensity. Different things are happening on different time and 
space scales, and in order to understand them they need to be 
measured appropriately. 

For example, if one were to take contours of oxygen from 
the east to the west side of the Bay, drop an oxygen probe and 
measure at about 8 meters or so, there's 4 parts per million 
oxygen, one would come to quite a different conclusion on the 
first day if 3 days later we went down and measured oxygen at 
about 6 or 7 or 8 meters and found out that it was anoxic. 

So the point here is that we can reach misleading, perhaps 
confusing conclusions if some of these things are not measured 
on an appropriate time and space scale. That's easy to say. 

It's considerably more difficult to do, and there is, of course, 
uncertainty. 

One of the nice things that's been happening, I think, in 
the last decade in the Bay is structures. Real things like 
these that are part of the Bay, we're starting to know about. 

And the more we know, I think the more fine-tuned a monitoring 
program could possibly be. 

A feature of these monitoring programs that I'd like to pro¬ 
mote and the group would like to promote is the notion that some 
measurements be integrated. That is, take into consideration a 
number of variables and measure something that tends to not only 


135 


be of management or scientific interest, but also integrates 
some other things that may in and of themselves be hard to in¬ 
terpret. Phytoplankton, biomass, and photosynthesis are natural 
ly linked. In regular monitoring terms what we're talking about 
is phytoplankton biomass, chlorophyll-a measurements, and pri¬ 
mary productivity measured with carbon 14 or some other standard 
technique. But the notion of some kind of integration of lots 
of variables into something that's measurable and important is a 
useful consideration. 

The third point, and I made these in other places, is long¬ 
term. I have some interesting primary productivity data from a 
place in the Mid-Chesapeake Bay over a 6-year period. Not a tre 
medously long period of time, but it's 6 years, and these sort 
of data bases are a bit rare. Made with the same technique once 
or twice a month for 6 years. And what we find here is some 
very substantial differences not so much in the pattern of pro¬ 
ductivity, but rather in the magnitude of the productivity. 

Interestingly enough, we had a bit of a natural experiment 
occurring here. In June of 1982 tropical storm Agnes added a 
considerable amount of freshwater and nutrients and other 
materials to the Bay. And one story could go that the 
phytoplankton productivity and phytoplankton biomass also 
followed a similar pattern responded, and there was a bit of a 
memory there perhaps in 1973, and then productivity gradually 
decreased to around 400 grams per square meter per year there¬ 
after. 

In 1973 to 1977, nutrient loading from the Susquehanna 
River was reasonably comparable. So we have a bit of natural 
variability here that could have led us to some quite different 
conclusions about the response of the Bay to large influxes of 
nutrients had this data base not been around. So, long-term 
data are very important. 

Lastly, we're very concerned with the infrastructure within 
these monitoring programs to try to synthesize the data that are 
being collected. Not just organize it, but rather synthesize it 
into forms that makes some scientific sense. In other words, we 
think we're getting a good reflection of what reality is, and 
into a form that's useful in making decisions. 

This is from that program. It's a very early piece of 
information that was developed. And it has to do ultimately 
with trying to understanding what's regulating and modifying the 
degree of anoxia in some portions of the Bay. 


136 


One of the things that I think is interesting here is that 
even in our early attempt at some synthesis, we see some things 
starting to connect up within this ecosystem, which is causing 
an event that we're all concerned about, and that is, productiv¬ 
ity generating the primary organic material there, sinking some 
portion beneath the pycnocline and getting a nice reflection in 
the subpycnocline chlorophyll with the amount of material that 
is on its way into the deep water vis-a-vis the sediment traps 
and with some lags. This seems to be a signal, perhaps a 
mixture of both physics of the system and biology describing the 
degree of anoxia. 

So I would make a strong punch that collecting data is 
nice. Having well-designed programs is, of course, absolutely 
essential. But spending a good deal of time and recognition of 
the importance of synthesis, putting together the story, is also 
incredibly important. 

My final point concerns something that's been getting a 
little more press nowadays than what it did in the past, al¬ 
though it's certainly not unique at this point, and that is 
trying to consider within the context of a monitoring program 
not just stocks, but also the rates. To say this another way 
that we all understand, it is awfully important for us to know 
how much money we have in our wallet or bank account. That is 
very, very important and we're all concerned with it. 

Hence, it's also important in ecosystems to know how many 
characteristics are there and what sort they are and so forth. 
And we're doing a reasonable job at that to some extent. 

It's also important in economics or in our own personal 
life, and it helps us to understand how much money there is in 
our wallet or bank account if we know who is writing the checks 
and how much they're for and when they're being written. 

So what I'm suggesting is a mechanism that is available, 
lots of different examples of it, wherein within the context of 
simple, routine, mundane, boring, at times, monitoring programs 
one ought to be measuring some rates or fluxes. That is, the 
major things that are connecting these stocks and the reason for 
that is it gives us better understanding and some anticipation 
of whether the stocks are going to get bigger or smaller. 

I suggest continued monitoring of these fluxes that are 
being either directly or indirectly measured within some of the 
monitoring programs, i.e., inputs from the land of various and 
sundry sources; that's the rate, those are being measured; the 
concentrations of nutrients, of plankton, and to some extent the 
abundance of members of the food web are being measured; and of 
course stock measurements. 


137 


We're also starting to measure, either directly or in¬ 
directly, some kinds of recycling from the bottom back into the 
water. A number of people have suggested that bottoms may be 
real important influences on overall water quality. 

The deposition of organic matter from the plankton, the 
composition of it from the shallow euphotic waters to the deep 
waters of the Bay, is certainly another potentially important 
descriptor of water quality conditions and the possible tra¬ 
jectory that they might take. 

I think I've made my points enough. There were a few of 
them. And I'm not going to reiterate, but I will answer any 
questions if you have them. 

Thank you. 


138 


THE STEWARDSHIP OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY 

FISHERY RESOURCES 

by 

Drs. Cluney M. Stagg and Brian J. Rothschild 
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory 


Stewardship means exercising responsible care of entrusted 
possessions. In the case that we are considering this after¬ 
noon, the fishery resources of the Chesapeake Bay are the en¬ 
trusted possessions. The central questions that we will address 
are these: Who is taking care of Chesapeake Bay’s fishery re¬ 
sources, and how can this task best be accomplished? 

This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how much 
money we spend on study or cleaning up the Bay. It has nothing 
to do with the number of conferences we have or media events. 
What it really has to do with is how we think about the re¬ 
source, how we think about taking care of the resource, and the 
degree to which existing institutions lend themselves to the 
task of protecting the resource in a cost-effective manner. 

Often the way we think about Chesapeake Bay and its re¬ 
sources is wrong-headed and frequently the cost-effectiveness of 
the way that we develop information on the resources is not 
efficient. With this as a point of departure, how can we hope 
to modify old institutions or create new institutions with new 
capabilities to do a better job of stewardship? 

Let us look at the way we think about the problem, parti¬ 
cularly from the perspective of how the process is portrayed to 
the public. It is amazing how the ordinarily clear thinking of 
public officials and scientists appears at times to be so 
facilely translated by the media. A recent newspaper article 
made the following assertions: 

"But a year after initiating a massive restoration effort, 
the governors, senators and cabinet officials were more 
optimistic about the health of the estuary." 

"We're getting on top of the problem; we're beginning to 
identify what's wrong with the Bay." 

"We're really at a point where we hope to see positive 
progress." 


139 




"The public officials observed some of the toughest 

challenges now before Chesapeake Bay scientists." 

Let's look in some detail at these four points: 

1. What is the massive restoration effort and how do we 
measure the health of the estuary relative to fishery 
resources? 

2. What are the problems? What's wrong with the Bay? 

3. What progress has been made? 

4. What are the tough challenges? 

First, we consider: 

What is the massive restoration effort ? 

When we talk about restoring the Bay, we are actually 
talking about restoring the living resources of the Bay. It was 
the decline in harvest of commercially and recreationally 
valuable fish that focused the public's attention on the Bay. 

The success of all the restoration efforts will be measured 
largely on the degree to which these resources become once again 
available — particularly in the public's perception. 

What has been referred to as the massive restoration effort 
involves at least $150 million dollars during this and next 
year, of which roughly 5 percent is being spent on fisheries 
management and enhancement per se . A considerable amount is 
being spent on protecting or enhancing water quality. This is 
good and there are valid reasons for wanting to restore water 
quality. But what are we doing about the stewardship of fishes? 
As the draft report of the Chesapeake Bay Commission Fisheries 
Work Group states, referring to water quality expenditures: 

"Unfortunately, we do not know when we can expect a re¬ 
sponse from these efforts in terms of the abundance of 

living resources, but it may be many years, even decades." 

What are the real problems ? 

Often the perceived problems in fisheries are taken to be: 
eutrophication, oxygen depletion, loss of submerged aquatic vege¬ 
tation, pollutants, acid rain, and so forth. In sum, fisheries 
problems are stated in terms of poor water quality and loss of 
habitat, and indeed these may be factors in determining fish 
abundance. From a fisheries management perspective, while not 
decrying what others are working on, these are not the really 
relevant issues. 


140 







Then what are the real stewardship issues relative to the 
fishery resources of Chesapeake Bay? First, let us discuss some 
of the more obvious manifestations of the fundamental problems. 

1• The declining abundances of important species . Are these 

conditions due to too much fishing or to environmental 

factors or both. Consider the following specifics: 

* American Shad - The abundance of American shad is at a 
historical low. Are there additional ways to assist in the re¬ 
covery of this species, in addition to the current moratorium in 
Maryland? 

* River Herrings - Commercial landings of the river her¬ 
ring have declined sharply in recent years. What is the current 
status of each of these species? 

* Striped Bass - Despite a great deal of research, there's 
still many guestions centering on the factors that determine 
year-class success in this species. Are we asking the right 
questions? 

* Atlantic Menhaden - Catches appear to be stable. Are 
sufficient statistics being reported to be able to know with 
reasonable certainty? 

* Atlantic Croaker - Can any management steps be taken to 
assist in the recovery of this species? Or are we dependent on 
climate-scale factors for any future recovery? 

* Weakfish - This is one of the most important recreation¬ 
al species in the Chesapeake Bay. Do we need additional regula¬ 
tions to protect sea trout? 

* Spot - Although year-to-year variability appears to be 
high, spot landings have generally declined since the late 1940s 
or early 1950s. What do we know from existing information about 
the causes for this decline? 

* Oysters - This is the most valuable commercial fishery 
in the Chesapeake Bay and landings have declined almost contin¬ 
uously since the late 1950s. What do we know about the reasons 
for decline? 

* Blue Crabs - This species is the key component of the 
seafood industry in Chesapeake Bay during the summer months. 

Does the existing information on the biology and population dy¬ 
namics of the species support the current laws and regulations 
for blue crabs? 


141 




* Soft-Shell Clams - The soft shell clam harvest has de¬ 
clined dramatically since it peaked in the mid-1960s. Can we 
significantly increase the yield-per-recruit by reducing the 
minimum legal size, as recent preliminary studies have suggest¬ 
ed? 

Other examples of declining stocks could be given. 

2. Allocation conflicts . Conflicts arise between 
recreational and commercial interests, users of traditional and 
modern fishing gears, and among states. 

3. Determining the timing, location, and probability of 

success of oyster shell and spat landings . The oyster 
repletion program is the cornerstone of oyster management in the 
Chesapeake Bay. How effective is this program with respect to 
maintaining or rehabilitating oyster stocks? 

4. Predicting the effects of hatchery construction for 
striped bass and oysters . For example, what is the likelihood 
of hatchery fry adding a significant enhancement effect to the 
striped bass population(s) or reducing heterogeneity of the wild 
stock. 

5. Measuring the effectiveness of management activities . At 
present, we cannot because we do not have, among other things, 
good catch and effort statistics. 

The points raised above represent some of the day-to-day 
problems faced by fishery management agencies and researchers. 

The Fundamental Issues 


We need to see serious consideration of the underlying, 
fundamental problems, which are essentially institutional 
issues. There is no system in place to provide overall 
strategic direction and focus to: 

1. Fisheries Statistics - Catch and fishing effort for all 
species in the Bay are vaguely known. For most fisheries, there 
are no effort statistics and without these it is difficult to 
tell whether fluctuations in catch relate merely to changes in 
fishing effort or whether, in fact, they relate to actual 
changes in abundance of the populations. Without some appraisal 
of the catch and changes in catch per unit of effort, it is 
extremely difficult to determine changes in fish populations — 
except those that are catastrophic — and hence the quality of 
management decisions cannot be known. 


142 









2. Multi-Jurisdictional Management - Many of the Chesapeake 
Bay's resources, including striped bass, blue crabs, and Ameri¬ 
can eels, are composed of single migratory stocks, however, they 
are managed independently by at least Maryland, Virginia, the 
Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and the District of Colum¬ 
bia. There are various degrees of interstate cooperation. At 
the present time, there is no mechanism which ensures the formal 
exchange of technical information on the resources of the Bay, 
nor is there an organization with the authority and expertise to 
enforce interstate fisheries regulations. 

3. Institutional Building - We believe that there needs to 
be a means of coordinating in a formal setting the activities of 
the many research institutions and management agencies in the 
whole Chesapeake Bay Region, so that the quality of over-all 
fisheries research can be enhanced. 

Progress 

However, this is not to say that progress in some of these 
areas is not being made. For example, consider the following 
activities: 


1. The NOAA appropriation of $1.5 million dollars for FY 1985, 
with $720,000 budgeted for conducting observations on living 
marine resources and $135,000 budgeted for improving fishery 
statistics. 

A group that includes many of the scientists and managers 
involved with the Chesapeake Bay fisheries, called the Chesa¬ 
peake Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC) has been formed to 
oversee this work. This group includes managers from Pennsyl¬ 
vania, Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, the Federal 
Government, and representatives from the scientific community. 
The Committee was formed to develop a cooperative Chesapeake Bay 
Stock Assessment Program. However, this group does not have the 
authority to manage fisheries; and Federal funding is on a year- 
to-year basis. 

2. Fishery management plans are being developed for a number of 
major fisheries by both Maryland and Virginia and informal co¬ 
operation is envisioned as these plans are prepared. 


What are the scientific challenges ? 

We looked at some of the scientific challenges in a very 
brief way when we considered some of the day-to-day problems of 


143 




fisheries management, and many are tough challenges. However, 
it seems to us that the greatest challenge isn't scientific. 
Rather, it is to get people to think about the right thing. 

The challenge is not the development of many fishery 
management plans or stock assessments (and we are not minimizing 
the importance of rational day-to-day fishery management). 
Rather, it jls to create an institution that can marshall 
scientific expertise on fishes and the environment of fish, an 
institution to "formalize cooperative fisheries management, 
research and statistical collection efforts." An institution 
that would do this was proposed in the Report of Workshop on 
Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Statistics , held in Fredricksburg, 
Virginia, in July of 1982. A Chesapeake Bay Cooperative 
Fisheries Investigation Unit to coordinate the activities of 
state and Federal agencies and academic institutions should be 
formed without further delay. Possibly, CBSAC will adopt and 
effect this role. 

First, this would provide for coordination of information 
on stocks and environmental information relevant to stocks. 
Secondly, it would provide a mechanism for publishing reports 
and scientific papers. Third, it would provide a mechanism for 
annual coordinated sampling cruises for the entire Bay. Fourth, 
it would provide an annual meeting to discuss in detail 
scientific topics of concern. And lastly, it would provide a 
sounding board to address scientific questions that might 
involve fishes that live in the waters of both states and the 
District of Columbia as well. 

To conclude, from a fisheries management viewpoint, the 
greatest challenge is to create an institution to formalize 
cooperative fisheries management, research, and statistical 
collection efforts. While institutions exist which could 
develop, facilitate, and coordinate the approaches we have 
specified, the simple fact is that these necessary actions are 
not now being done. 

Thank you. 


144 





MANAGEMENT OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY'S 

WATERFOWL RESOURCES 


LONG-TERM TRENDS (1948-86) OF WINTERING WATERFOWL 

iN CHESAPEAKE BAY 


by 

Dr. Matthew C. Perry 
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center 

Few areas in the world have been as historically famous as 
Chesapeake Bay for wintering waterfowl. This 180 mile long bay, 
with 4,000 miles of shoreline and extensive shoal water areas 
for feeding, provided optimum habitats for millions of waterfowl 
during winter. Accounts by sportsmen and naturalists relate how 
the water areas were covered with ducks. From approximately 
1880 to 1910, waterfowl wintering on the Chesapeake Bay 
sustained the largest market hunting business known to man. 
Waterfowl were killed by the thousands and stuffed into barrels 
for transport by train to the major cities in the east. 

A decreasing number of waterfowl in the Chesapeake Bay early 
in the 20th century aroused concern among Americans, and in 1918 
market hunting was outlawed with the historically important 
treaty between the United States of America (USA) and Great 
Britain (for Canada). Waterfowl populations began to slowly 
increase in North America until the drought of the 1930s, 
coupled with excessive drainage of northern breeding areas, 
resulted in population declines and again aroused the public to 
the plight of our waterfowl. New hunting regulations in 1935 
outlawed the use of live decoys and bait while hunting. The now 
well-known "duck stamp" program was initiated in 1935 to provide 
funds to establish more waterfowl refuges in the USA. 

During the 1960-80s, the public became increasingly con¬ 
cerned about environmental pollution impacts on waterfowl habi¬ 
tats. The Chesapeake Bay, with hugh metropolitan areas on the 
western shore, received the brunt of this abuse, resulting in 
continued degradation of habitat. It was during this period 
that biologists became poignantly aware that SAV was disappear¬ 
ing in many areas of the Bay (Bayley, et al. 1978). Parts of 
some rivers, especially in the Upper Bay region, became totally 
devoid of plants. 


145 






The objective of this report is to discuss the present 
status of the major waterfowl species in the Chesapeake Bay 
based on analysis of 39 years (1948-86) of winter survey data. 
Each waterfowl species was compared to the status of populations 
in the Atlantic Flyway and North America to determine if changes 
detected in the Chesapeake Bay were due to conditions in the 
Bay, or to Flyway or Continental population levels. 

The assistance of Edward Burton with the preparation of 
graphs and of Valerie Lumsden in word processing is appre¬ 
ciated. Robert Munro assisted with analysis and interpretation 
of data. Drafts of this manuscript were reviewed by Ronald 
Eisler, James Fleming, Robert Munro, and Vermon Stotts. 

METHODS 

All survey data used in this report were obtained from un¬ 
published data in files of the Office of Migratory Bird Manage¬ 
ment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Laurel, Maryland. 
The Chesapeake Bay counts represent counts in Maryland and 
Virginia combined. Aerial surveys were flown at low levels 
(25-100 m) with single engine aircraft of the USFWS and various 
State wildlife agencies. Surveys in the Chesapeake Bay have 
been conducted since 1948 in early January when waterfowl popu¬ 
lations are more stable and concentrated than at other times 
during the winter. The average number of waterfowl during the 
1980s was compared with the average number during years before 
1980 to determine present status of waterfowl. Survey data in 
graphs are presented as 5-year averages (except for the 4-year 
period, 1983-86) to minimize annual fluctuations and to empha¬ 
size long-term trends. Further discussion on survey techniques 
and data analysis are given in Perry et al. (1981). 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

Tundra Swan 


Tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus) populations in the Chesa¬ 
peake Bay have been variable during the 39-year period of aerial 
surveys (Table 1? Fig. 1). Lowest numbers occurred at the 
beginning of the surveys in 1948 (18,216) and then peaked in 
1955 (75,854). Populations were also high in the mid-1960s. 

The long-term average population was 36,710. The average re¬ 
corded during the 1980s was 35,065 which was only 5% less than 
the pre-1980 average of 37,070. 

In the early years of the surveys, swans in the Chesapeake 
Bay were found mostly in the lush aquatic vegetation beds in the 
central portions of the Eastern Shore. In the late 1960s and 
early 1970s, however, tundra swans began to feed in agricultural 
fields on waste corn and winter cover crops. Although most of 
this feeding occurred on the Eastern Shore one large flock of 


146 



approximately 1,000 was seen regularly in farm fields near 
Benedict, Maryland, not far from the Patuxent River. The use of 
fields for feeding areas occurred in the Bay area (Munro 1980) 
at the same time that SAV beds in the Bay were disappearing. 
Stewart (1962) did not mention field feeding by swans. The 
swans adapted to an alternate feeding pattern which appears to 
be to their advantage. 

The Chesapeake Bay historically has been the most important 
wintering area for tundra swans in North America, and in the 
early years of the survey population trends in the Chesapeake 
Bay, Atlantic Flyway, and North America were similar. During 
the 1970s and 1980s, however, an increasing number of tundra 
swans have been recorded in North Carolina. During this period 
more than half of the Atlantic Flyway population was recorded in 
North Carolina. This change in distribution was most likely due 
to increased number of agricultural areas in North Carolina and 
overall less human disturbances in these feeding areas. Agri¬ 
cultural fields in North Carolina tend to be larger than in 
other areas, which also may favor the large swans during take 
off. The increased population and purported damage to agricul¬ 
tural areas by the swans were two reasons for establishing 
special hunting regulations for tundra swans in North Carolina 
during the 1984-85 and 1985-86 hunting seasons. 

Canada Geese 


Canada geese (Branta canadensis) populations in the Chesa¬ 
peake Bay area have undergone phenomenal changes during the 39 
years of winter surveys (Table 1; Fig. 2). As was the case with 
tundra swans, lowest numbers occurred at the beginning of the 
survey in 1948 (62,130). This population steadily increased and 
peaked in 1981 (701,470). The long-term average was 382,760. 

The average during the 1980s was 590,335 geese which was 75% 
higher than the pre-1980s average (337,352). Overall, popula¬ 
tion trends in the Chesapeake Bay during the 39 year-period were 
not similar to trends in the Atlantic Flyway and North America. 
Populations south of the Chesapeake Bay (mainly North Carolina) 
declined during this period, whereas continental trends have 
been variable. 

This dramatic increase in Canada goose populations appears 
to be directly related to their ability to capitalize on 
abundant food in the agricultural areas of the Eastern Shore. 
Waste corn available to geese after harvesting provided the 
necessary high energy food for geese at the same time their 
traditional foods of emergent and submergent plants were de¬ 
clining throughout the Bay. Goose populations continued to 
increase during the 1970s-80s despite liberal hunting regula¬ 
tions for this species. By feeding on high energy food, geese 
were able to feed less frequently and were therefore exposed to 


147 



less hunting pressure than species constantly searching for 
food. By maintaining excellent body condition throughout the 
winter, geese were in good breeding condition on reaching 
nesting areas in northern Canada. Geese usually improve their 
breeding condition by feeding at James Bay, Canada before the 
final flight north. 

Some people are now concerned that increased hunting 
pressure on the Eastern Shore and abundant food resources in 
Pennsylvania and New York may result in fewer geese migrating to 
the DELMARVA peninsula. This "shortstopping" phenomenon began 
during the 1960s and resulted in reductions to the historically 
large goose populations in the Southeast, especially North 
Carolina. As long as there are abundant snow-free corn fields 
and ice-free water areas, Canada geese will minimize their 
southward migration, especially to areas that are heavily 
hunted. 

American Black Duck 


The black duck (Anas rubripes) has traditionally frequented 
the eastern coast, and large numbers have been recorded in the 
Chesapeake Bay (Table 1; Fig. 3). The highest number of black 
ducks in the Bay were recorded in 1955 (281,485) and the lowest 
in 1979 (28,820). The long-term average population was 84,197 
ducks. During the 1980s, the population averaged only 51,365 
ducks, which was 44% lower than the pre-1980s average of 91,379. 

During the 1950s, approximately half of the Atlantic Flyway 
black ducks were recorded in the Chesapeake Bay. During the 
1960s and 1970s only one third were recorded in the Bay, and 
during the 1980s less than one fourth of the Atlantic Flyway 
black ducks wintered in the Chesapeake Bay. Although black duck 
populations have declined most dramatically in the Chesapeake 
Bay, declines have been noted in all wintering areas of the 
Flyway. Surveys now record black ducks most frequently in 
coastal areas of New Jersey. 

During the 1950s, approximately 85% of the Maryland black 
ducks were recorded in sections of the Eastern Shore of the Bay, 
especially the Chester River (Stewart 1962). With the demise of 
the SAV, black ducks did not have an alternate food source 
readily available. Most black ducks in the Chesapeake Bay 
during recent years were found on fresh water areas of the 
Patuxent River and tributaries of the York and James Rivers. In 
these areas, black ducks fed on seeds of smartweeds (Polygonum 
spp•), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), and other marsh plants 
(Perry and Uhler 1981). Small flocks of black ducks are also 
recorded throughout the cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) 
marshes in the brackish areas of the Bay. The salt marsh snail 
(Melampus bidentatus) is their predominant food. Black ducks 
have also been observed feeding on corn in agricultural areas 
near the Chester River (pers. comm. V.D. Stotts). 


148 



Mallard 


The mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) has traditionally been 
mainly a Mississippi Flyway duck, but populations tend to spill 
over to other Flyways. Mallard population trends in the Bay are 
similar to those of the black duck (Table 1? Fig. 3). Mallard 
populations in the Chesapeake Bay were lowest in the late 1940s 
and early 1950s, with a low count in 1949 (8,235). Excellent 
breeding conditions in the prairie provinces of Canada in the 
mid-1950s caused populations to rise, and a peak wintering 
population in the Chesapeake Bay occurred in 1956 (182,195). 
Drought conditions in the late 1950s and early 1960s caused 
populations to decrease and to remain relatively low and stable 
throughout the 1970s. 

In the mid-1970s large numbers of game-farm mallards were 
released in the Chesapeake Bay with releases continuing through¬ 
out the 1980s. The release program is probably a major reason 
that mallard numbers in the Chesapeake Bay were 16% higher 
during the 1980s (57,553) than the pre-1980 average (49,826). 
Many of these game-farm mallards are found in close association 
with man, and appear to adapt to changing environmental 
conditions more readily than the closely related black duck. 
Mallards were more numerous than black ducks in the Chesapeake 
Bay during eight of the last ten years (1977-86). The long-term 
average population of mallards in the Chesapeake Bay was 51,212. 

Stewart (1962) found that seeds of smartweeds, bulrushes 
(Scirpus spp.), and burreed (Sparganium americana) predominated 
in the mallard diet in fresh water areas. In brackish areas, 
seeds, leaves, and stems of SAV were more important as food 
sources. Rawls (1978) found SAV as the predominant food during 
the 1960s, whereas, Munro and Perry (1981) found only 5% of the 
food eaten by mallards was SAV during the 1970s. Seeds of a 
variety of marsh plants (over 100) were the predominant foods. 

Wigeon 

Wigeon (Anas americana) populations in the Chesapeake Bay 
declined during the years of aerial surveys (Table 1; Fig. 4). 
Peak populations occurred in 1955 (144,350), most likely due to 
excellent production in the breeding provinces of Canada. 

Wigeon numbers declined to a low of only 900 ducks in 1984. The 
long-term average winter population was 29,246. During the 
1980s the winter population has averaged only 5,226 ducks, which 
was 85% lower than the pre-1980s average of 34,500. Population 
declines of wigeon in the Chesapeake Bay have occurred at a 
faster rate than those in the Atlantic Flyway and in North 
America. 


149 




Wigeon in the Chesapeake Bay have traditionally been 
associated with the canvasback and tundra swan, and usually fed 
in vegetated areas. During the 1950s, over 80% were recorded 
along the Eastern Shore of the Bay (Stewart 1962). Wigeon 
typically ate the upper vegetated parts of plants that were 
discarded or dislodged by canvasback or other waterfowl, 
although they also fed on winter buds of wild celery (Valli- 
sneria americana) (Stewart 1962). During the 1960s, wigeon fed 
on the exotic plant eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spica- 
tum) more than any other duck species (Rawls 1978). Because the 
wigeon was unable to change to alternate food sources as some 
other species did, wigeon numbers in the Bay declined as the 
amount of vegetation decreased. 

Northern Pintail 


The pintail (Ana acuta) is mainly a Pacific Flyway duck 
although large numbers have occurred in the Chesapeake Bay 
(Table 1? Fig. 4). Peak populations occurred in 1956 (78,211) 
but numbers declined to a low of only 400 in 1970. The long¬ 
term average number of pintail in the Chesapeake Bay is 16,282. 
During the 1980s, an average of only 3,935 ducks were recorded 
which was 79% lower than the pre-1980s average of 18,982. The 
average number of pintail in the Atlantic Flyway during the 
1980s was 52,657, and most were recorded in the Carolinas. 
Continental pintail populations reached an all-time low in 1986. 

The pintail, like the wigeon, was most common in the Chesa¬ 
peake Bay during periods of good breeding conditions in Canada 
and excellent winter habitat in the Chesapeake Bay. With the 
loss of SAV in the Bay, pintail populations have decreased, and 
it seems that this species was unable to take advantage of alter¬ 
nate food sources, with one notable exception. Perry and Uhler 
(1981) found that pintail from the James River had fed on the 
Asiatic fresh-water clam (Corbicula manilensis) more than any of 
the other duck species examined. However, umbrella sedges 
(Cyperus spp.), rice cutgrass, and smartweeds were predominant 
foods. 

Canvasback 


The canvasback (Aythya valisineria) has traditionally been 
synonymous with the Chesapeake Bay, and large numbers have 
wintered in the Bay (Table 1; Fig. 5), especially in the Susque¬ 
hanna Flats area. During the heyday of market hunting the 
canvasback continually commanded top price among ducks in the 
market. It is not known how many canvasbacks once frequented 
the Bay, but aerial surveys since 1948 showed that peak numbers 
were recorded in 1954 (399,320). Canvasback populations 
plummeted shortly afterwards to a low of 48,120 in 1958. 


150 




Populations increased in the mid-1960s as a result of better 
conditions on the breeding grounds and to restrictive hunting 
regulations. Canvasback numbers, however, decreased again in 
the late 1960s, and in 1972 the hunting season on canvasbacks 
was closed. The long-term average population of canvasbacks in 
the Chesapeake Bay was 104,012 in the 1980s the population 
averaged 52,931, which was 54% lower than the pre-1980s average 
of 115,811. In 1986 canvasback in the Bay were at an all-time 
low of 34,300. Canvasback populations in the Chesapeake Bay 
during the 1970-80s have been relatively stable despite in¬ 
creasing number of canvasbacks in the Atlantic Flyway and North 
America. The phenomenon led Perry et al. (1981) to speculate 
that habitat degradation in the Bay was adversely affecting 
numbers of wintering ducks. 

When SAV beds in the Bay declined the canvasback was forced 
to seek alternate food sources. It did this much more effec¬ 
tively than other duck species, and now the Chesapeake Bay 
canvasbacks feed predominantly on molluscs (Perry et al. 1981). 
This food source, however, is not considered to be as nutri¬ 
tionally sound as the high energy plant tubers upon which it 
formerly fed (Perry et al. 1986). 

Redhead 


Redhead (Aythya americana) population numbers in the 
Chesapeake Bay are on a long-term downward trend (Table 1; Fig. 
5). Although there was a peak number of redheads in 1956 
(118,800), this population has steadily declined to a low of 
only 800 ducks in 1983. The long-term average was 35,288 
redheads. During the 1980s the average winter population 
recorded in the Bay was only 3,506 which was 92% less than the 
pre-1980s average of 42,240. Most of these ducks are seen in 
the Tangier Island area. An average of 97,914 redheads were 
recorded in the Atlantic Flyway during the 1980s, indicating 
that population declines in the Chesapeake Bay have been more 
drastic than in other areas. 

Unlike the canvasback, the redhead did not change its food 
habits as habitat conditions changed. It still feeds on the 
upper vegetative parts of submerged aquatics. With the loss of 
SAV in the Bay, redhead populations in the Bay declined, and now 
redheads are most abundant in North Carolina, Florida, and Texas 
where SAV is abundant. Because the redhead is now wintering in 
different areas than the canvasback, hunting regulations are no 
longer the same as they were historically. 

Scaup 

Scaup populations in the Chesapeake Bay consist of two 
species, the greater (Aythya marila) and lesser (Aythya affinis) 
scaup. Scaup (Table 1; Fig. 6) in the Chesapeake Bay peaked in 
1954 at 403,658 and then declined in the late 1950s. 


151 




Populations increased in the 1960s and then declined steadily to 
a low of 10,700 in 1982. The long-term average population size 
was 65,909. In the 1980s, the population was 28,973 which was 
61% lower than the pre-1980s average of 73,988. Trends of scaup 
populations in the Chesapeake Bay have not been similar to those 
in North America and the Atlantic Flyway. For unknown reasons 
scaup populations in the Chesapeake Bay in the early 1960s did 
not reflect the record 2.6 million recorded throughout North 
America. 

Historically, scaup have fed on molluscs and crustaceans 
(Stewart 1962, Munro and Perry 1981), and current food habits 
indicate similar food preferences. It is doubtful whether the 
loss of SAV in the Bay has significantly affected the distribu¬ 
tion or abundance of scaup, although the diversity of inverte¬ 
brate food organisms has probably declined due to the loss of 
SAV (Perry et al. 1981). 

Common Goldeneye 

The goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) is a hole-nesting duck 
that breeds in the forested wetlands of southern Canada. Winter¬ 
ing populations in the Chesapeake Bay peaked in 1956 at 40,518 
and reached a low in 1976 at 2,445 (Table 1; Fig. 7). The long¬ 
term average population in the Bay is 19,659. In the 1980s the 
average population in the Bay has been 17,513 which is 13% lower 
than the pre-1980s average of 20,128. Trends of goldeneye popu¬ 
lations in North America and Atlantic Flyway have been similar 
during survey years. 

Goldeneye feed mainly on invertebrates (Stewart 1962, Munro 
and Perry 1981), and changes in the distribution and abundance 
of SAV have probably not affected goldeneye populations. The 
amount of vegetation eaten by goldeneye has declined, however, 
during the hundred years in which food habits analyses have been 
conducted. 

Bufflehead 


Although the bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) and goldeneye 
both breed and winter in similar habitat, their wintering popu¬ 
lation trends are different (Table 1; Fig. 7). Bufflehead 
numbers have been steadily increasing from a low of 2,502 in 
1959 to a peak of 36,023 in 1977. The long-term average popu¬ 
lation was 14,813. During the 1980s the average population was 
16,840 ducks which was 17% higher than the pre-1980s average of 
14,444. Population trends in the Chesapeake Bay have been 
similar to those in the Atlantic Fiyway and in North America for 
the bufflehead. 


152 




The bufflehead has traditionally been an invertebrate feeder 
although vegetation has formed a more important part of its diet 
in the past than it does now. During the 1970s the predominant 
food eaten by buffleheads was the duck clam (Mulinia lateralis) 
(Munro and Perry 1981). 

Ruddv Duck 

The ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) has shown a significant 
decline in numbers in the Chesapeake Bay during years of aerial 
surveys (Table 1? Fig. 8). Peak numbers occurred in 1953 
(124,740) and declined to a low in 1976 (4,703). The long-term 
population average for the Chesapeake Bay was 33,642. In the 
1980s the average population was 15,729 which was 58% less than 
the pre-1980s average of 37,560. Trends of the Chesapeake Bay 
ruddy duck populations have been different than those in the 
Atlantic Flyway and North America. Highest numbers of ruddy 
ducks in the Atlantic Flyway are recorded in North Carolina. 

Ruddy duck population trends in the Chesapeake Bay have 
paralleled trends in the Atlantic Flyway and in North America 
indicating that these changes are a continental phenomenon. 

Although the ruddy duck was traditionally a vegetative 
feeder (Cottam 1939), it now is feeding to a greater extent on 
invertebrates (Perry et al. 1981). Increasing numbers of ruddy 
ducks are recorded around cities like Baltimore and Washington, 
D.C. (Wilds 1979), where they are probably feeding on tubificid 
worms (Tubificidae) (Stark 1978). 

Scoter 


Scoter (Melanitta spp.) populations in the Chesapeake Bay 
have been variable (Table 1; Fig. 8). Peak population occurred 
in 1971 (130,900), and then reached a low of 1,551 in 1981. The 
long-term average was 16,760. The average in the 1980s was 
6,565 which is 65% lower than the pre-1980s average of 18,990. 
The average Atlantic Flyway scoter population during the 1980s 
was 57,386. 

Scoters are traditionally invertebrate feeders (Cottam 1939, 
Martin, Zim, and Nelson 1951) although no record of their food 
habits was made by Stewart (1962), Rawls (1978), or Munro (1981) 
for the Chesapeake Bay. Changes in their distribution within 
the Chesapeake Bay may be due to changing food resources and 
should be investigated. 


153 




Summary 


Overall the long-term average of the Chesapeake Bay water- 
fowl during January has been 1 million birds. During the 1980s 
the average was still 1 million birds, although there were major 
changes in species composition. For example, Canada goose popu¬ 
lations during the 1980s were 75 percent higher than the average 
population prior to 1980. This is directly related to their 
ability to utilize the abundant field crop resources (mainly 
corn) on the Eastern Shore. 

Only the mallard and bufflehead populations during the 1980s 
are higher than their average populations during the 32-year 
period of 1948-79. All other species of ducks have shown signi¬ 
ficant declines, which seems to be directed related to the degra¬ 
dation of waterfowl habitat in the Chesapeake Bay. Duck popu¬ 
lations in the Chesapeake Bay can be expected to remain at low 
levels until SAV beds recover in the Bay and production improves 
on the breeding areas. 


Table 1. Range and Average Populations of 13 Waterfowl Species 
in Chesapeake Bay 1948-1986 as Determined by Aerial 
Winter Surveys. 


Species 

High Count 
(Year) 

Low Count 
(Year) 

39-Year 

Mean 

1980s 

Mean 

Tundra Swan 

75,854 

(1955) 

18,216 

(1948) 

36,710 

35,065 

Canada goose 

701,470 

(1981) 

62,130 

(1948) 

382,760 

590,335 

Black duck 

281,485 

(1955) 

28,820 

(1979) 

84,197 

51,365 

Mallard 

182,195 

(1956) 

8,235 

(1949) 

51,212 

57,553 

Wigeon 

144,350 

(1955) 

900 

(1984) 

29,246 

5,226 

Pintail 

78,211 

(1956) 

400 

(1970) 

16,282 

3,935 

Canvasback 

399,320 

(1954) 

34,300 

(1986) 

104,012 

52,931 

Redhead 

118,800 

(1956) 

800 

(1983) 

35,288 

3,506 

Scaup 

403,658 

(1954) 

10,700 

(1982) 

65,909 

29,973 

Goldeneye 

40,518 

(1956) 

2,445 

(1976) 

19,659 

17,513 

Bufflehead 

36,023 

(1977) 

2,502 

(1959) 

14,813 

16,840 

Ruddy duck 

124,740 

(1953) 

4,703 

(1976) 

33,642 

15,729 

Scoter 

130,900 

(1971) 

1,5511 

(1981) 

16,760 

6,565 


154 






SWANS 


48 H 



20 -j-1-,-1-1-1-1-1 1 

1948-52 53-57 56-62 63-67 68-72 73-77 78-82 83-86 

Figure 1. Long-term trends in populations (xlOOO) 
of tundra swans in the Chesapeake Bay during eight 
periods from 1948 through 1986. 



Figure 3. Long-term trends in populations (xlOOO) 
of black ducks and mallards in the Chesapeake Bay 
during eight periods from 1948 through 1986. 




Figure 2. Long-term trends in populations (xlOOO) 
of Canada geese in the Chesapeake Bay during eight 
periods from 1948 through 1986. 


Figure 4. Long-term trends in populations (xlOOO) 
of wigeon and pintail in the Chesapeake Bay during 
eight periods from 1948 through 1986. 


155 














Figure 5. Long-term trends in populations (xlOOO) 
of canvasback and redhead in the Chesapeake Bay 
during eight periods from 1948 through 1986. 



' i" * i i-1-1-1 

1948-52 55-57 56-62 65-67 68-72 7 3-77 78-82 85-86 


Figure 7. Long-term trends in populations (xlOOO) 
of goldeneye and bufflehead in the Chesapeake Bay 
during eight periods from 1948 through 1986. 



Figure 6. Long-term trends in populations (xlOOO) 
of scaup in the Chesapeake Bay during eight periods 
from 1948 through 1986. 



Figure 8. Long-term trends in population (xlOOO) 
of ruddy duck and scoter in the Chesapeake Bay during 
eight periods from 1948 through 1986. 


156 












Literature Cited 


Bayley, S.V.D. Stotts, P.F. Springer, and J. Stennis. 1978. 
Changes in Submerged Aquatic Macrophyte Populations at 
the Head of the Chesapeake Bay, 1958-1975. Estuaries Is 
171-182. 

Cottam, C. 1939. Food Habits of North American Diving Ducks. 
Tech. Bull. No. 643. U.S. Dep. Agriculture, Washington, 
D.C. 139pp. 


Martin, A.C., H.S. Zim, and A.L. Nelson. 1951. American Wild¬ 
life and Plants - A Guide to Wildlife Food Habits. McGraw- 
Hill Book Company, Inc. 500pp. 

Munro, R.E. 1980. Field Feeding by Cygnus Columbianus Columbia- 
nus in Maryland. Pages 261-272 in G.V.T. Matthews and M. 
Smart, eds., Proc. Second Internat. Swan Symposium, In- 
ternat. Waterfowl Res. Bur., Slimbridge, England. 396pp. 

Munro, R.E., and M.C. Perry. 1981. Distribution and Abundance 
of Waterfowl and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Che¬ 
sapeake Bay. Final Report to FWS/OBS - 78/D-X0391. 180pp. 

Perry, M.C., and F.M. Uhler. 1981. Asiatic Clams (Corbicula 

Manilensis) and Other Foods Used by Waterfowl in the James 
River, Virginia. Estuaries 4:229-233. 

Perry, M.C., R.E. Munro, and G.M. Haramis. 1981. Twenty-five 
Year Trends in Diving Duck Populations in the Chesapeake 
Bay. Trans. North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 46:299-310. 

Perry, M.C., W.J. Kuenzel, B.K. Williams, and J.A. Serafin. 

1986. Influence of Nutrients on Feed Intake and Condition 
of Captive Canvasbacks in Winter. J. Wildl. Manage. 50: 
427-434. 

Rawls, C.K. 1978. Food Habits of Waterfowl in the Upper Chesa- 
paeke Bay, Maryland. Unpub. Rept. Univ. of Md., Chesapeake 
Biol. Lab. 140pp. 

Stark, R.T. 1978. Food Habits of the Ruddy Duck (Oxyura Jama- 
icensis) at the Tinicum National Environmental Center. 

M.S. Thesis, Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, 

Pa. 68pp. 


157 



Stewart, R.E. 1962. Waterfowl Populations in the Upper Chesa¬ 
peake Region. Spec. Sci. Rep. Wildl. No. 65. U.S. Fish 
Wildl. Serv., Washington, D.C. 208pp. 

Wilds, C. 1979. The Washington, D.C. Christmas Bird Count as an 
Indicator of Environmental Changes. Pages 10-11 in J.F. 
Lynch, ed., Bird Populations—A Litmus Test of the Environ¬ 
ment. Proc. Mid-Atlantic Nat. Hist. Symp. Auduborn Natural¬ 
ist Soc., Washington, D.C. 48pp. 


158 


PANEL DISCUSSION 


159 



























































PANELISTS 


Participants 


Dr. Grace S. Brush 

Johns Hopkins University 

Mr. William M. Eichbaum 

Office of Environmental Programs, State of Maryland 

Dr. Edward D. Houde 

National Science Foundation 

Dr. Alvin R. Morris 
EPA: Region III 

Dr. Thomas C. Malone 

Horn Point Laboratory, CEES 

Dr. James G. Sanders 

Academy of Natural Sciences 

Dr. Howard A. Seliger 
Johns Hopkins University 

Dr. James P. Thomas 

NOAA Estuarine Programs Office 

Dr. Glenn Kinser 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 


161 











































PANEL DISCUSSION 


Dr. D'Elia: I'll start from the far end introducing the 
people on the Panel. 

Dr. Tom Malone, from the University of Maryland Center for 
Environmental and Estuarine Studies; Dr. Jim Sanders, whom we 
have heard from before; Dr. Ed Houde, who is finishing up his 
term with the National Science Foundation Biological Oceano¬ 
graphy Program and has been on leave from the Chesapeake Biologi 
cal Laboratory; Dr. Howard Seliger, who is with Johns Hopkins 
University; Dr. Grace Brush of the same; Dr. Glen Kinser with 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Dr. A1 Morris, who is with 
the U.S. EPA Region III; Mr. Bill Eichbaum, who is Assistant Sec 
retary for Environmental Programs, State of Maryland; and of 
course you know Jim Thomas and me. 

So with that. I'll ask a guestion, and anybody can feel free 
to jump in. I've always been interested in knowing, with all 
the focus on anoxia, what can we do about it in the Bay? 

Anybody got an answer? Why don't I pick Tom Malone? 

Dr. Malone: What can we do about anoxia in the main stem 
of the Bay? I think the question remains open right now, 
whether or not, and I don't say that this isn't the case, but 
whether or not the increase in anthropogenic nutrient inputs 
into the Bay has in fact aggravated the situation. Unfortunate¬ 
ly, I think that, as some of the people today have pointed out, 
the data sets that exist do not allow us to establish a cause- 
and-effect relationship between inputs of nutrients, but they 
diffuse inputs or point source inputs, and the actual magnitude 
in terms of the volume of and areal extent of anoxia in the 
Bay. I think that's one of the most important things that we 
need to establish not only from the point of view of under¬ 
standing the mechanisms that couple these inputs and outputs, 
but also from the point of view of management. 

For example, understanding how relationships among nutrient 
inputs, phytoplankton production, and anoxia are related in 
space and time is critical to determine how to manage inputs of 
nutrients, be they nitrogen or phosphorous. 

I guess the basic point I want to make is that we don't have 
the data base to establish the link between nutrient input and 
oxygen depletion. The analogy that was made would be one that 
would, say, compare to nuclear arms. We know that the U.S. and 
Russia have enough weaponry to totally destroy the earth ten 
times over, and we have no idea right now for the Chesapeake Bay 
whether or not we're up in that ozone layer in terms of nutrient 
inputs or whether our input is basically, you know, just noise 
in the system that's being mainly controlled by variations in 
climate. 


163 



Dr. D'Elia: Bill Eichbaum seems to be reacting 
differently there. 

Mr. Eichbaum: I'd put a slightly different spin on that 
ball maybe. And for those of you, I'm not a scientist, I'm a 
lawyer, so it's easy to put a different spin on a scientific 
ball and not to worry too much about it. 

But it does seem to me that there are two things in terms of 
the answer to the question to keep in mind. One is, and I 
haven't been here all day, but I caught most of Walt Boynton's 
talk and your point of the data base. I mean, the monitoring 
program is in place in part to try and develop that data base so 
that if we don’t know those relationships or enough data to know 
those relationships now, we will at some point in the future. 

And secondly, at least to the extent that you can have a 
reasonable program for reduction of nutrients, we are doing 
that, both from point sources and non-point sources, and both in 
terms of I guess what I call near-field effects on dissolved 
oxygen and the main stem of the Bay. We will begin to pick up 
those relationships and trends, if they can be picked out from 
the background, over time. 

So I think I would, as I say, have a slightly different 
perspective, but not disagreeing. 

Dr. Malone: I couldn't agree with Bill more. I think 
initiation of monitoring programs has been one of the most 
important things that's happened in the last couple of years. 

Dr. D'Elia: Howard, could we hear from you on that? 

Dr. Seliger: Well, I really came here to learn something 
about the Chesapeake Bay that other people were willing to talk 
about. I have been depressed ever since I heard the Governor 
say that we knew what to do and we were going to do it. 

I have no idea on what precisely to do. I don't know what 
the relationship is between nutrients and anoxia or between the 
Connowingo Dam, the increase in anoxia and the subsequent loss 
of fish species. 

I think I would take the side of Larry Haas and say that 
perhaps the data we've been collecting is not really related to 
food chains. If we want to know about anoxia, we have to ask 
about the effect of anoxia in the various tributaries. The 
central channel of the Bay is a transport train and it's also a 
ship train. 


164 


We really don't know anything about the way in which the 
processes in the Bay affect the food chains. Since we're 
interested in fish and phytoplankton, I don't see that the 
research in any way is at a level that would allow us to make 
management decisions. 

Dr. D'Elia: I wonder if anyone in the audience has any 
particular guestion about anoxia they want to address to 
anybody. All right? 

Dr. Harriette Phelps, University of the District of Colum¬ 
bia: I'm surprised a little at the confusion on monitoring and 

research. Monitoring is an engineering concept with a definite 
goal or with definite effort levels. Research, on the other 
hand, is not a known endpoint. It's distinguished by the abil¬ 
ity to ask the right guestions, which is after all, what we were 
trained as scientists for. And I assume that we are not asking 
the right questions. 

For example, we're confusing correlation with effect. We're 
monitoring like heck, but what you measure might have nothing to 
do with a parallel for measurement, especially for biological 
systems, wh J rh are far more complex. 

Secondly, we aren't even asking ... well, we can't even 
answer basic questions like what is the cause of decline of the 
fish. I'll say herring? Another one that I see every day, 
practically, which is the incredible resurgence of submerged 
aquatic vegetation in the Potomac? Nothing that the Corps of 
Engineers has done has put that in place. They should be out 
there measuring that every minute to find out why it is occur¬ 
ring. Because I don't think we've even come close to a handle 
of what is going on. I think we are losing our focus on biologi¬ 
cal inputs. So you've got to be able to ask intelligent ques¬ 
tions and focus our research. 

Dr. D'Elia: With that, I think the best person to deal 
with this is Al Morris, who frequently gets accused of 
monitoring and not doing enough research if that's the central 
issue. Do you have any comment on that? 

Dr. Morris: I don't think the best person to ask for that 
question is Al Morris at all. 

My approach would be a little bit different, I think. And I 
think my perspective is one which hasn't been brought out today, 
which I will endeavor at Jim's invitation, to bring out now. I 
think Jim asked me to comment on a couple of things. One is the 
Restoration and Protection Plan and the other one is sort of my 
perspective of what some other items that should have been dis¬ 
cussed or that at least bear on the discussion today in terms of 
what I think the speakers were getting at, which is basically a 
restoration of the Bay. 


165 


The Restoration and Protection Plan that was issued last 
Friday with a lot of hoopla and excitement has been criticized 
both internally and externally and has also been applauded and 
probably for very different reasons. 

It's been criticized because it didn't go far enough and 
because some of the statements in there were a little bit 
tenuous in terms of science. I agree that they were and are. 

It's been applauded, and I think rightfully so, because it 
makes a major milestone in institutional cooperation, a regional 
cooperation that has for the first time, I think, looked at the 
Bay as a whole from the standpoint of the agencies who impact it 
and can institutionally have an impact on changing the way 
things happen in the Bay if there is a will to do that. 

So we have in one book for the next year the activities 
which will be undertaken by three states, the District of Colum¬ 
bia, and six Federal agencies to work on the Bay. It doesn't 
mean that they're all coordinated necessarily or neatly pack¬ 
aged. But they are there, and there is a will to do it and a 
will to work. 

The other component in terms of today's discussion, which I 
think would be helpful for you to help us with as scientists, is 
two other major areas that we didn't spend much time on. And 
let me go back to the first discussion that we had this morning 
from Senator Mathias where he spoke a lot about the political 
side of what we're doing and how he had managed to pull together 
a number of agencies and get money for the study and also the re¬ 
cognition up to the national level to the Office of the Presi¬ 
dent of the United States. 

So I think that is one area that needs to be recognized. 

That unless w * get that kind of recognition and that kind of 
support, then we can do all the talking we want in forums like 
this and we will be talking to ourselves in terms of implement¬ 
ing a solution. 

So first is the institutional mechanism and institutional 
will. And that has been put together into the Executive Council 
of the Chesapeake Bay Program. The second component of it is 
public information, public participation, because that in es¬ 
sence takes the concern which you have expressed today, trans¬ 
lates that into a political support which has been recognized by 
the Congress and also recognized by the President. 


166 


All three of those pieces such as institutional mechanism 
and will, public participation and information, and the scienti¬ 
fic community, and the definition of what is wrong and what we 
can do about it, are all integral to solving the problem which 
we're here discussing today. 

So with that, I throw that out basically as an overview from 
my perspective in terms of management. Management doesn't mean 
what we discussed in the last portion of today's topic from the 
standpoint of at least Bill and I and our major roles here and 
William and Jim. In fact, this end of the table seems to be 
involved in an inter-tidal zone. Not the kind we talked about 
today. But the inter-tidal zone between policy-makers and 
scientists. 

We are day-to-day having to interpret for the policy-makers 
what you folks are telling us and taking abuse from them as to 
why we don t known more precisely to the tune of a 100 percent 
certainty what we're advising them to do. And from their side 
of it or from your side of it we're taking the shots sometimes 
that you are disenfranchised from the process. And from that 
standpoint trying to explain on the other side how far we can go 
and what we need to do to market your ideas and your science in 
order to turn it into public policy and financial support. 

So basically I think those are some components, Chris, of 
what would be helpful and why we need your help. The monitoring 
aspects that were just mentioned are a piece of that, and we 
certainly need to be able to answer it. But we can raise some 
of the questions to you in terms of the answers we need in order 
to get support for what you want to do and why you want to do it 
better. 

Dr. D'Elia: Since I made the statement about disenfran¬ 
chisement, I suppose it's reasonable for me to jump in here. 

I think sometimes we have to remember some of the lessons 
... I'm not trying to be too harsh with this. But there have 
been other attempts in developing science-management relation¬ 
ships in other countries that have not been very successful 
because people have wished things to be true that aren't 
necessarily true. 

Dr. Morris: Right. 

Dr. D’Elia: And I refer specifically to the Lyseinko case 
in Russia. I'm not doing exactly the same thing. But there is 
danger in management that people wish things to be true and ex¬ 
pect the science to fall in line. And in defense of the scien¬ 
tific community, sometimes I feel that we are not given an ade¬ 
quate chance to help develop the questions and say how we might 
go about answering them. 


167 


Dr. Morris: That is an issue that will come up 
periodically and you need to keep raising it because we need 
your input, and there should be a mechanism in order to get it. 
And it should be listened to and evaluated. 

I had a boss once who was somewhat like that and said that 
he wanted things to come out a certain way in terms of science. 
And I suggested to him the next day that maybe he should have a 
law passed that the sun wouldn't come up the next day and see if 
the political system could do that in terms of science. 

It's the same sort of thing. We need to have you in. And I 
think there's a two-way street in terms of the needs of the 
policy-makers for the certainty that you can or can't provide in 
your recognition of how you get into the process and market and 
sell in terms of what you know, how certain you are, and what we 
can do about it. 

Dr. D'Elia: How can we help? I think that's the next 
logical question. 

Dr. Morris: Well, in terms of the Chesapeake Bay Program, 
we have a scientific thing called an advisory committee, which 
is set up to do that. Also, there are other mechanisms in which 
you can get in through the university or through your state or 
just by giving a call. But there is an institutional mechanism 
to get the scientific world in, and I think you need to make 
sure that, one, that piece of the institution is there. And 
secondly, when you're invited, that you participate. 

Dr. Thomas: If I might just comment on that ... one of 
the conferences of the Estuary-of-the-Month series is exactly 
this sort of thing. We've made a real attempt to involve the 
Sea Grant Program from the States of Maryland and Virginia. So 
I hope that we'll at least respond. The heart is in the right 
place. 

Dr. D'Elia: The Rothschild-Stagg paper at the end 
suggested that we needed to reconsider our institutional 
arrangement for fisheries in a more serious fashion. Does 
anybody on the panel have a comment on that? Ed? 

Dr. Houde: I think that I generally would agree with 
Stagg and Rothschild. Fishery management is a complex business 
anywhere, and here in the Chesapeake Region where you've got 
three or four states that are involved, allocation problems are 
especially difficult among users. A good institution that gets 
both administrators and scientists together on a commission or 
board, I think that Stagg called it a "Chesapeake Bay Fishery 


168 


Cooperative Investigation," would be very good. What he's sug¬ 
gested sounds much like what has been done in the California 
area with the California Cooperative Fishery Investigation over 
the years. This organization is recognized worldwide and is one 
of the foremost agencies both in recommending and carrying out 
resource-oriented research. From a management point of view, I 
guess you could guestion just how effective that organization 
has been. But nonetheless, to organize our research, to make 
recommendations for management and get the states cooperating, 
I'd endorse the idea of that kind of institution. 

Dr. D'Elia: Any comments on that? 

Dr. Kinser: I guess one thing that I saw, particularly in 
the Stagg paper, it made me realize that with the research and 
the monitoring that we're doing we're still a long way from 
answering a lot of the guestions. And there's a need for action 
at this time. 

That's not to say that we should do away with either re¬ 
search or monitoring, but I think we should make action an egual 
partner in this. We may not know for years to come what the 
exact impact will be of a particular nutrient for any other 
situation; and let's go ahead and take some forward action to 
change this trend that we've seen in many species around. 

That may be by reducing nutrients. It may be by reducing 
sediment. It may be by dealing with point source impact, 
nonpoint source impact, ^t cetera . I think we need to make a 
progressive effort in each one of those fronts. We can't kid 
ourselves. Thirteen million people have an impact on the 
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, and we seem to be avoiding that if we 
wait for these decisions. 

Dr. D'Elia: I can't agree more. I guess waiting is not 
the thing to do now. But in addressing the setting up of an 
institution for the stewardship of fishery resources, I wonder 
is that practical? Would it be easy to do? How would one go 
about it? Any comments on that? 

Dr. Kinser: I think it would be very difficult in 
fisheries or in wildlife. In the waterfowl issue you're talking 
about multiple states. You're talking about international 
situations. Each one of them is going to be very difficult. 

The striped bass issue might be an example of that. Some states 
are reducing the take; some are not doing anything at all. 


169 



Question: I'm afraid that you can't say that some are not 

doing anything at all. That's just one example. I just wonder 
why the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission isn't 
represented or why it wasn't mentioned. You do have a body 
there that does do some or has some management curfew and who 
could certainly have made some contribution here today. I don't 
represent them, by the way, but I certainly agree with our last 
speaker that we do need this stewardship responsibility. But 
there is one area where we do have a "little say" on the Chesa¬ 
peake Bay..and most of the states have done something on striped 
bass. 


Dr. Kinser: I'll agree with that. That's one I think 
you're involved with through multi-governmental bodies. And in 
the case of the waterfowl, you're dealing with Canada as well. 

Dr. D'Elia: To be sure, the entry of Pennsylvania as a 
full partner last week is an important thing. You can't deny 
that. But that's more, I think, from the point of view of the 
water quality issue than stewardship of the fishery resources. 

Dr. Morris: Aren't they all linked? I mean, to have 
Pennsylvania in finally, even though a reluctant bride, is 
important in terms of solving the problems of the Bay. Unless 
Pennsylvania is willing to put regulation on the industries, 
municipalities, and farmlands that flow into the Susquehanna, I 
doubt that we're going to clean up the Bay. So to have them 
involved in the process is certainly important to the overall 
health of the Bay, I would think. 

Dr. D'Elia: I would agree. What I'm addressing 
particularly is the fisheries efforts in the regulation of 
catches and things like that. Too often we tend to couch the 
Chesapeake Bay as a water quality issue alone and fail to 
consider the impact of overfishing. I think that was made by 
several speakers today. And I think this is the particular 
effort of Mr. Stagg, the preservation of an institution. 

Mr. Eichbaum: I don't think one of the approaches we've 
tried to take in Maryland, and you can quarrel as to whether 
we've been successful or not, is to not have this be a water 
quality issue. The point is that the water quality and habitat 
ought to be there for the fishery resource in its total 
biological sense. 

As I say, you might quarrel with specific elements. And I 
have trouble if we begin to go, kind of break it apart into new 
institutions. We certainly have a fishery issue here, a water 
quality issue here. 

We think that at least some sort of marriage in that area 
between the two is important. And I guess I noticed a last bit 
of that slide so that the fishery subcommittee of the Chesapeake 
Bay Commission was going to be reconstituted. But the speaker 
didn't say anything about that. That might be a good starting 
place to begin to do this. But, again, in the overall context 
of looking at both issues. Okay? 


170 


Dr. Houde: Just to respond a bit, I don't have a big 
argument with Bill, but I think there is a perception among a 
lot of the people, people involved in the fishing industry of 
the Chesapeake, that those people who are exploiting the re¬ 
source would strongly like to believe that it's only a water 
quality issue or at least that the water quality dominates the 
problem. 

It clearly is a big problem and the multiple changes that 
we've heard about today in the Bay quite likely have caused a 
lowering of the potential of productivity in the Bay. People 
involved in exploiting the resource are very reluctant to accept 
that the yields are no longer going to be as high as they were. 
So it's a people problem. 

Mr. Eichbaum: I agree with you, and that's why I want to 
talk about both issues at the same time. Sort of secretly at 
home at night the people that work at OEP would say, "If they 
just managed the fish right, we wouldn't have any problem." And 
the people at DNR sit there at night and say, "If you give me 
clean water, the fish will be fine." 

And that's what we've got to cut through, it seems to me. I 
think we've made some progress in the last couple of years in 
that regard. And I agree with you that the constituency groups 
have all different kinds of perspectives. But I want to go out 
... in fact, we're going to do this with one of the fishing 
associations in Maryland next month. Verna Harris from DNR and 
I are going to go out and talk about living resources and water 
quality and try and make them understand the relationship. 

Dr. D'Elia: One comment I have, it's sort of one of the 
institutional-political quirks we have with the way the system 
works. EPA is really charged mainly with the responsibility of 
taking care of the Chesapeake Bay, and EPA’s orientation has 
typically been a water quality orientation, and nobody is 
faulting them on it. 

NOAA, on the other hand, and I'm not trying to be solicitous 
of them for putting the seminar on, is interested more in the 
resources aspects of things. But NOAA hasn't been terribly 
involved. So for that reason we haven't seen the kind of 
involvement with stock assessment and things that are so badly 
needed. Can EPA cover the role adequately of fisheries 
stewardship? 

Dr. Morris: Not really. I don't think so. It's not our 
charge, and we're going to be funded for it. But I think the 
fact that NOAA and Fish and Wildlife Service are all now 
involved, that should help in getting these programs together so 


171 


in fact they work cooperatively, don't duplicate, and also that 
we then start looking at holes so if there are holes where we 
need information, in order to fill some of the gaps that were 
mentioned, then we can start going back and plugging them in the 
budget process, which we haven't done yet. 

So my sense would be that while you may need a new institu¬ 
tion to work on the management problems, certainly don't sepa¬ 
rate it from the water quality so that all of a sudden we've got 
the possibility of going two separate ways again when we're just 
starting to pack the people together. Because if there's one 
thing we've heard today, it's that we don't have the linkages 
between water quality and resource productivity. And those two 
are linked somehow even though we can't define them today. 

Dr. Thomas: I think, if I'm not speaking out of turn 
here, I think that NOAA really is interested in working with the 
EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the states and so on to 
provide that linkage, that linkage between habitat and quality 
and effects on the stocks, the living stocks, so that ultimately 
the point and non-point source loadings can be regulated in such 
a way that we know what the impacts are on the living marine 
resources. 

I don't think the general public is as interested in the 
habitat quality as they are in the living marine resources. So 
we would like to work with the other agencies and institutions 
involved in order to further that relationship for more suitable 
management. 

Dr. D'Elia: Some questions? Yes, Joe? 

Dr. Joseph Mihursky, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory: I 
want to address this question to Bill. And I'd like to ask this 
question of certain members of the panel. 

Senator Mathias in his efforts pointed out the need to not 
only have EPA involved in the Bay, but also have NOAA involved, 
so you have the legislature forcing, you know, a water quality 
oriented organization and a living resource agency to come 
together on the Bay. 

Similarly, at the State level. Senator Fowler had a bill 
passed that Health and Hygiene and DNR must get together and 
provide the Legislature with a report on the monitoring efforts 
for the Bay. 

What I'd like to ask is would the agencies have done that on 
their own, or was it necessary for the political process to 
force it? 


172 


Mr. Eichbaum: Well, in the case of Maryland, I think the 
answer to the question is, yeah, we would have done it on our 
own. We had been. That bill specifically deals with the moni¬ 
toring issue, and both agencies had in fact been working and 
doing it in a cooperative way in monitoring and other issues, 
the whole Maryland program. 

In fact, we supported Senator Fowler's legislation because 
we saw that as important to providing a framework for long-term 
commitment by the Legislature that in fact they be a part of 
that process of keeping those two agencies together over the 
long haul of a 5- or 30-year monitoring program. So we think 
it's valuable. Sometimes it's essential. It didn't happen to 
be in that particular case. 

Dr. Morris: On the Federal side, my sense is that we 
would have gotten together. At least I would like to think we 
would have. But certainly from a pragmatic standpoint what the 
Senator did was extremely important in making it come about 
quicker. 

Dr. Thomas: I certainly would agree with A1 on that. I 
think from a pragmatic sense, certainly NOAA would want to be 
involved in that. I might add that contained in the functional 
statement for the NOAA Estuarine Programs Office in terms of its 
formation it really includes just this sort of thing we're 
talking about in terms of coordinating and in helping to improve 
the management of our Nation's estuaries with regard to living 
marine resources within NOAA as well as coordinating with other 
Federal and state academic agencies and institutions. 

So I submit that Senator Mathias has probably hastened the 
process, but I think in a most desirable way. 

Dr. Morris: For a very pragmatic reason too, because in 
the budget battles the agencies are fighting over the same pot 
of money. So bureaucratically it gets very easy to develop 
bureaucratic enemies. Whereas now that we’re sitting around the 
same table and find out that there's a human being on the other 
side of the face it's much easier to call up on the phone and 
say, "Hey, how about we getting together on this; I think we can 
work it out?" So from that standpoint the Senator did a very 
valuable thing putting us all together quicker rather than 
waiting. 

Question: I'd just like to ask one question to the panel 

at large. We've heard a lot of information on monitoring data 
and the need for more monitoring data for various parameters. 


173 


and there has been some emphasis on cause-and-effect relation¬ 
ships and the need for that kind of data. I'd like to find out, 
though, what is the role of the Federal and state agencies in 
terms of more practical solutions to various problems? I might 
use the example of the use of emergent vegetation in small 
settling ponds to control non-point source base water runoff 
from large housing developments. Those type of solutions, which 
do require scientific research, but are not what you would call 
more along the lines of pure science. 

Mr. Eichbaum: That's a good question. It's kind of that 
interface between research and application, and it is an issue 
which frequently we tend to rely on the private sector and entre¬ 
preneurship to try and begin to fill gaps, or engineering firms. 

We do have some efforts, particularly in the sewage area and 
in the storm water management area where we've actually put 
money into the State budget to fund the development of tech¬ 
nology to actually apply in the field. The State of Maryland 
reports annually on what we're doing in the Bay. And, you know, 
thumbnail sketches of those programs would be in that Annual 
Report. And anybody could follow up with in more detail with a 
particular agency. 

Dr. D'Elia: More questions? 

Question: I have one question with regards to the institu¬ 

tional framework necessary for coordination of fisheries manage¬ 
ment within the Chesapeake Bay or between any two jurisdictions. 

I think it's in place right now if it were fully exploited. 
That is, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 
(ASMFC), which was referred to earlier by Mr. Martin. There is 
a section in that Commission called the Chesapeake Bay Section, 
which does include Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. 

The interaction between the fishery biologists, the research 
community within the university systems of the individual states 
could very easily be worked into that Section to coordinate work 
and to bring together or merge the habitat quality, water qual¬ 
ity and fishery management questions. 

I don't disagree with the need for an institutional forum, 
but I think we already have a basis that can be built upon in 
the ASMFC. The bottom line, however, is that the proof of the 
pudding is bringing it home and enacting it in various provi¬ 
sions so far within the interstate fisheries management pro¬ 
gram. That is once the Commission has agreed to something away 
from home and you come back to your individual jurisdictions and 
bring it into play, such as striped bass regulations, which are 
not uniform at this point in time, and there has not been, after 
1981, passage of a plan of uniform regulations put into effect 
within 2 months or 6 months when the opportunity, however, 
existed. 


174 


I think the onus has to come back to the states. And if the 
states are indeed willing to adopt regulations consistent with 
the findings of the scientific community, recommendations, and 
mount research programs along these guidelines, the framework 
exists. All we need to do is just add on a little more infra¬ 
structure beyond that which now exists within the ASMFC struc¬ 
ture process. That is, a legislative appointee, a gubernatorial 
appointee, and a fisheries manager. Three representatives from 
each of those states, or commissioners. Build a scientific base 
underneath it and you've got basically the institutional frame¬ 
work I think you're requesting for fisheries management, unless 
I read it wrong. 

Dr. Houde: I think you may be right, that there could be 
the base there, but the number of constraints that you listed in 
your last two or three minutes, to me, are significant and 
difficult ones. 

Question: This is regardless of your institutional frame¬ 

work? 


Dr. Kinser: I don't think we have the ethic that we 
need. I don't think we're taking individual responsibility as 
states or as individuals. And I think that's probably a key 
behind it. If we're not going to take that individual 
responsibility for our own actions ... I mean, we can go out on 
the Bay and look and daily there are many decisions that are 
being made that are having small, minor impacts on the Bay, but 
which are cumulative. And I think that's where we're failing to 
deal with this. 

We're balancing things. And unfortunately, the environ¬ 
mental aspect always comes up negative in the cost-benefit in 
the individual decision basis. You're balancing things like do 
we put a building on the river ... out over the river because of 
the fact that these townhouses or apartments or condos will sell 
a lot better if you have a water view. That doesn't balance 
well against saying, "Well, we only have six acres that are 
going to be impacted here." And it just seems to be a snow¬ 
balling thing. You can look at the decisions we're making, I 
think, on a whole variety of things ranging from EDS permits to 
discharge of spoil material, overboard spoil, and the increasing 
problem with sediment and toxics in the Bay downstream of that. 
You know, I think it's just a whole sequence of events. 

And that applies to the fisheries decisions as well. 

Dr. D'Elia: Question in the back? 

Question: I would be curious to know what is the number 

of publicly owned sewer plants in the State of Maryland, and 
what the State of Maryland is doing for getting them into 
compliance? 


175 


Mr. Eichbaum: About three hundred and thirty treatment 
plants in the State, public and private. The last report which 
we did, which was about 1-1/2 years ago or 2 years ago actually, 
indicated that about half of those plants had some form of 
violation other than minor or paperwork. 

Following that revelation we've done a couple of things. 

One is about doubled our inspection resources on those plants. 
Secondly, for the first time begun to file civil penalties 
against units of government for violations of the plant. And 
thirdly, is to develop a plant-by-plant strategy that states 
what they will be doing, when they will be doing it, when they 
will do it by. That strategy basically provides for every plant 
in the State to be in compliance with what we believe are the 
required water quality derived effluent limitation by 1988. 

Probably the two exceptions to that are Oakland in Garret 
County, which does not discharge to the Chesapeake system, but 
which has never had a sewage treatment plant, they are starting 
construction now. They have a posted penalty, and they will be 
in compliance a lttle bit later than that. 

And the final completed construction of the Back River 
Sewage Treatment Plant at Baltimore, which is about 108 million 
gallons per day plant, which will be totally reconstructured, is 
also the first sewage treatment plant in the country, which was 
built to protect oysters back in about 1915, I guess, will be 
totally reconstructed at a cost in excess of 400 million dol¬ 
lars. That's going to carry us into the early 1990s. Did I 
answer your questions? 

Dr. D'Elia: A question way in the back? 

Question: What is the relationship between the National 

Marine Fisheries Service and the Atlantic Marine Fisheries 
Commission? And is the Atlantic Commission the same thing as 
the regional fisheries management council? Do you think that 
the National Fisheries Service can input advice. 

Dr. Thomas: All three outfits that you talked about are 
different. The National Marine Fisheries Service has input into 
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council as well as the 
Fishery Management Council. And essentially, there are scienti¬ 
fic and technical groups, and the National Marine Services 
Fisheries' personnel are on each of these groups. Additionally, 
NOAA has formed the Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee 
with members from the States of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsyl¬ 
vania, and District of Columbia. So I think there certainly is 
a great deal of networking. And I hope that the informational 
flow will be coming to heel. 


176 


Dr. Barber: Mary Barber, from NOAA. The Chesapeake Bay 
efforts that have gone on are going to be used as a model across 
the Nation now for investigating other estuaries and dealing 
with the management problems there. On the panel we've got a 
wide range of perspectives and backgrounds, and I would like you 
all to give me some views about it from your perspectives and 
backgrounds. What are the successes and failures of the 
Chesapeake Bay efforts? What might you say to other areas 
across the country that are developing plans, et cetera? What 
might you say to them about using a model of the Chesapeake Bay? 

Dr. D’Elia: Why don't we start down at that end and give 
these people a little relief here? 

Dr. Malone: I feel one of the biggest successes, and I 
speak as a relative newcomer in this whole business of the Bay, 
one of the biggest successes of the Chesapeake Bay Program per 
se has been better definition and definition that's good enough 
to ask the perfect questions to study the environmental problems 
that are facing the Bay. 

And I think they have forced the various states to face up 
to the fact that we've got to work together in order to solve 
some of the problems that exist. So a very brief answer to your 
question is that I think we are in a position to define some of 
the problems. We are in a position and some of the other people 
on the panel have stated this to begin to move towards at least 
some short-term solutions without putting into massive efforts. 

For example, I believe, there have been statements as some 
of you know, to put a tremendous amount of money into eliminat¬ 
ing all of the point and non-point pollutant inputs into the 
Bay, without understanding especially, the inputs in terms of 
the nutrients what the impact of that would be. 

We are in a position, I think, now to go out and dovetail a 
meaningful program with research projects that deal with how to 
relate to various things or how to monitor them in a cause-and- 
effect fashion. And the groundwork has been laid for that. 

Dr. Sanders: Again, as Tom said, I come into this fairly 
late too. But I think that one of the biggest successes that I 
see, both inside and outside the Bay area in the late seventies, 
and also as a scientist inside the Bay in 1980, one of the big¬ 
gest successes is probably the cooperation between both regional 
managers and also regional scientists. I think that a program 
this large requires that these different groups coordinate with 
one another. And I think that this will continue to be a very 
valuable resource for this region for some time to come. 


177 


I guess one of the biggest disappointments that I had is 
that as we enter this new phase in Bay program management 
issues, that I don't believe that we're moving well enough to 
begin to put together the geochemical linkages with biological 
interactions that we see within both fluctuations of stock and 
also in basic productivity assessments. 

I think that there are still a number of questions and a 
number of areas that need to filled in how these organisms are 
interacting with their environment. And I don't see that we're 
moving in that direction. 

Dr. Houde: I've been impressed with the marshalling of 
political and public support that I've seen since I've come into 
the Chesapeake Region. I think that this could be held up as a 
model to other people. I suspect that within the next 5 years 
we will obtain the answers to some of the problems that we've 
talked about today. I think Jay Taft alluded to needing to do 
more modeling and to use some of the newer remote sensing tech¬ 
niques . 

The nutrient problem I think is in everybody's mind. Some 
of Bennett's assertions relative to phosphorus removal not 
having much effect, I think, ought to impress us. We are 
beginning to get some insights into the problems here in the 
Chesapeake Bay. 

As far as fisheries management, which I've been closer to, I 
wouldn't say that I'm completely disappointed. I think there is 
a lot of potential to do some very good management in the Bay 
that we have not accomplished at present. We've talked about 
the ways it might be done in the last minutes. 

Dr. Seliger: Well, I'm not a newcomer to the Bay. I've 
been institutionalized for a long time in the Bay. I've been 
institutionalized ever since the Rhode River Consortium, the 
Chesapeake Bay Consortium, ad nauseam . I think, however, that 
we have the opportunity to do something since we have the public 
support and the financial support, and I agree completely with 
Tom Malone that we have a much better idea of what to do and how 
possibly to relate some of the cause-and-effect relationships to 
the monitoring program that we didn't have before. 

And I think in a sense when one publishes every year in the 
professional journals observations about the Bay that one didn't 
know before and that one hasn't been able to predict, then one 


178 



really is not in a position at the present time to advise the 
managers on exactly what management decisions to make. 

I think it's analogous to this fellow coming in to see his 
doctor who says, "I'm covered with sores; I keep getting mugged 
on my way to work." And the doctor says, "Well, you better 
watch your diet (nutrients), it will help." But that may not be 
the causality that is influencing the open sores. 

I think it's unfortunate that we talk about the Chesapeake 
Bay as "A Chesapeake Bay." It's really a very unusual estuary 
in that it is the sum of all its tributaries. The central 
channel during the winter and early spring serves as migration 
for larval life stages of fish that spawn outside the Bay and 
mainly as a shipping channel for the rest of the year. 

But what we must consider is the sum of the tributaries to 
this Bay; and each of them has a different weighting factor. 

Some of them require more than a "hundred feet" of grass. Some 
of them might require a lot more. I think we may find, for 
example, that sedimentation into the Bay is much more signifi¬ 
cant than sewage plant effluents. It might be easier to put all 
of our money into upgrading sewage treatment because we can 
monitor sewage plant effluent very easily. But it may not save 
the Bay. And particularly it may not save the particular 
species which spawn and use food sources in the tributaries. I 
think this is a very important consideration that we haven't 
addressed at all. 

Dr. Brush: I think one of the very important aspects of 
this program, and it was very unique, was to really look at the 
long-term history of some aspects of the Bay. We were able to 
document very clearly that SAV was not a cyclic life and death 
phenomena but that actually the demise of SAV was clearly re¬ 
lated to human activity. 

The thing that I find disappointing is that the monitoring 
program has not incorporated this technique which gives measure¬ 
ments of long-term variability into their program. We have been 
doing very detailed sedimentation rates which have allowed us to 
calculate annual rates of sedimentation in several tributaries 
of the Chesapeake Bay, particularly in the Upper Bay. 

We have been able to show, for example, in those years when 
there was high peak flow there is also high sedimentation. If 
this fine sediment is carrying with it toxics, nutrients, and so 
on, it is extremely important to know how far it's going and how 
quickly it goes from one place to another. 

The stratigraphic work is able to address those problems, 
and we have been able to compile some long-term trends. 


179 


Dr. Kinser: I've been impressed by the monitoring and 
research. I've been impressed by the cooperation. I've had a 
lot of second thoughts about some other things, however. 

I'm apprehensive about much of the voluntary cooperation 
that is stressed as a keynote of the Bay program. I don't think 
it will work. That may be too negative a statement, but I don't 
think it will. 

I'm also concerned that we're going on to continue making 
decisions that are adverse to the Bay on a daily basis. We’re 
getting incomplete mitigation for projects that are going on and 
being permitted by the various agencies that are or are not at 
this table. So I have some concerns in that area. 

Dr. Morris: Strengths I think are in the line of having 
the institutional mechanism in terms of the organizations that 
can control the inputs into the Bay or an organization whereby 
we can exert that control. 

Secondly, I think the benefit has been in terms of public 
information, public participation, in terms of letting people 
know what's going on and getting feedback about what should be 
done. 


Thirdly, from a scientific point of view, I think we have 
maybe determined some of the significant problems of the Bay and 
permitted us to at least put the band-aid on the sores if not to 
find what the cause of the sores are. 

In terms of the deficiency, I think the deficiency has been 
that we have not been specific enough in defining the cause- 
and-effect relationships between the living resources and the 
water quality characteristics? and therefore, we cannot define 
quantitative loads which we want to use as targets for our 
control programs. 

Mr. Eichbaum: I guess just three points I'd make for 
somebody else looking at this. 

One is define the questions that you think you're trying to 
answer that identify what the problem in your estuary is. 

Secondly, if you can do that and you are still thinking or 
studying or whatever the issue and have the money, I would start 
right away a monitoring program. We spent 27 million over 6 or 
7 years and didn’t even have a regularized monitoring program of 
the Bay. Anecdotal particular research project, yeah, but not a 
monitoring program. 


180 


Thirdly, I think, is to have some sort of an overall 
management institution put into place right away to manage the 
process that is made up of the relevant levels of government and 
appropriate private sector representation. 

Dr. Thomas: I think we've been very encouraged from 
NOAA's standpoint to see the kind of networking and interaction 
occurring between the Federal agencies and the states and so 
on. I certainly feel that we feel that to clean up costs money, 
costs a great deal of money. And the cleanup needs to be 
directed or guided to clean up the right kinds of things in the 
right amounts at the right locations. 

And while it’s certainly easier theoretically to mount a 
massive cleanup, that is, to cut out all loadings from all 
sources and so on, with today's tight economic times it probably 
makes better sense, provided we can get the knowledge we need 
to, because I think it requires more skill, to, make a linkage 
between habitat and either the anthropogenic influence to 
habitat or take the climatically, naturally influenced habitat, 
but to make that linkage the habitat and the living marine 
resources so that the portion that man is having some impact on, 
the anthropogenic loadings that we control, that we can tell 
what these impacts are in regard to the living marine resources. 
And then regulate those things for desirable ends rather than 
strictly across the board cleanup on all issues. 

It is quite difficult and it will cost money and it will 
take time. 


Dr. D'Elia: I sort of agree and sort of disagree with 
Bill Eichbaum. I think that one of the things I've been most im¬ 
pressed with in the last 8 years I've been working in the system 
is that we are defining the questions much better than we ever 
have before in seeking the answers. 

I'm not convinced that the monitoring program, for example, 
is always put in the context of answering questions. Very often 
monitoring seems to be the end and not just the means. I think 
it's very important that we always try to have a reason for doing 
anything. I'm not disputing the need to monitor? I think the 
need is there. But we always need to focus on why we do it. 

So I would say that what we've done best is really started 
to define the questions and tried to develop some public sense of 
what we want out of the Chesapeake Bay, which is really the 
bottom line. 

I think I'll stop my comments there. But I see Gene Cronin 
squirming in his seat. I knew that we couldn't have that kind of 
question asked and not include Gene. Do you have any comment? 


181 


Dr. L.E. Cronin: Well, I've very much enjoyed every bit 
of this seminar all day. I'd like to ask you one question. As 
I recall the purpose of the Chesapeake Bay Program, the 
statement and committed purpose of all of the participants at 
the present time is something like this, and maybe you can make 
it more precise: 

"Restore the biological health, productivity and useful 
resources in the Chesapeake Bay system." Is that approximately 
right? 

We've talked a lot about fishery resources, but I'm 
particularly interested in what this panel means by biological 
health of the Chesapeake Bay system, since that's our first 
target. We've said things related to it, but I'm not sure our 
definition is your definition. I'd appreciate a comment. 

Dr. D’Elia: That could keep us going quite a while. 

Dr. Morris: I think. Gene, in terms of the discussion it 
would have to be along the lines that we talked about the other 
day at the meeting you were at. But for the people who weren't 
there, basically it seems to me that the world that we're in 
now, the biological health has to be related to the uses of the 
Bay which we define as the ones we want to protect and are 
willing to put the resources ... energy, dollars, and political 
will ... behind to protect. 

So the Bay is being used for a number of different things, 
all of which society agrees or many of which society agrees are 
appropriate and as many of the speakers mentioned today, they 
conflict. 

So part of the problem is to define those uses of the Bay 
which society wants to protect, and it's primarily implied in 
the legal requirements that we have to protect the Bay, and meet 
the habitat, water quality, and other requirements necessary to 
meet those uses. I see it as a mixture with one not where 
society defines the priority, and then we can protect those 
things and the water quality that we design, the hydrology would 
be designed, and the uses would be designed to reflect what 
society wants the Bay to become. 

Dr. Houde: I might be a little more specific. It's hard 
to say. Gene, just what we'd be satisfied with with regard to 
fishery resources. But no one today has said much about the 
specific technologies we now have at hand to possibly put a big 
bandage on the Bay. It is possible to raise millions of striped 
bass, for example. Costs are formidable and there are different 
opinions about using this method to restore fish to the Bay to 
jump over the recruitment bottleneck that seems to be in the way 
for the last 15 years. 


182 


Knowing what level of enhanced restoration would satisfy us 
is another question. All of us would like to have something 
like the early explorers saw that Senator Mathias told us about 
this morning, but of course we can't have that. 

I think what fishery managers would like to have in lieu of 
that, though, is stability. Stable production at some lower 
level than we perhaps had in the 19th century would be, I think, 
a very acceptable alternative. 

Mr. Eichbaum: Maybe I could say just a few words on that. 
Gene. It seems to me that the Chesapeake Bay is, perhaps, the 
only experiment that we have going on in this country and maybe 
in the world where we're, at least what I think the State of 
Maryland is trying to do, is to see if it's possible to limit 
the adverse impacts of human activity on a functioning biologi¬ 
cal system so that system can survive without being completely 
managed by mankind. It seems to me that's the real test of what 
we’re about. And I happen to think that we have to meet that 
challenge, and I think we're going in the right direction to do 
it in the Bay. 

One aspect that we haven't talked about that I just want to 
touch on because it's relevant to that is the mammouth effort to 
not just worry about what goes into the water, but also worry 
about what's going on on the land adjacent to the Bay. Because 
I'm convinced that we could clean up all the pipes and perhaps 
have perfect fisheries management plans, but if the development 
practices of the last 40 years continue, we will not have a 
Chesapeake Bay in the way we know or think of it, at least 
historically. 

I flew with the governors last Friday in helicopters, and 
that was quite an experience to fly from Washington, D.C. to 
Lancaster County to Elkneck to the Rappahannock, go up the 
Western Shore and down the Eastern Shore at a thousand feet in 
about six-and-a-half hours. Because what you see is that we're 
occupying the land. And we are disturbing it, and we are 
shoving it about. And we are not only moving it and the stuff 
we dump on it into the Bay, but we are destroying habitat in the 
stream, adjacent to the stream, in the wetlands, adjacent to the 
wetlands at a rate and an intensity which is absolutely astound¬ 
ing. And unless we reverse that, I don't think any of the stuff 
we've talked about matters. And the critical area, as you know, 
is designed to start doing that where we will essentially, we 
hope, in the administration insure that somewhere around 85 per¬ 
cent of the shoreline of the Bay and its tributaries remains in 
forest land and hopefully in agriculture land with best manage¬ 
ment practices really in place, both to protect water quality, 
to protect in-the-water habitat and to protect land habitat for 
all of the species which depend on that. 


183 


So I view it really as a major ecological experiment in the 
use of that word from the early 1970s. And that's what those 
phrases mean. 

Mr. Morris: Gene, now that you've asked the question and 
they've answered it, are you going to tell them whether they're 
right or not? 

We sat down and talked about this for most of a year, as I 
recall, and we decided to do away with the term. Correct? 

Dr. L.E. Cronin: We did for that purpose, but it's still 
conserving, our objective is chemical work and physical work and 
managing what happens on land and managing flows from rivers, 
quality and quantity and all of those. It's almost always the 
biological systems that are receiving in the Chesapeake Bay. 

That is not the only important value, obviously. But that is 
why we're at this. Yet we're not always linking what we do to 
the biological system, the whole biological system, not just the 
harvest of fish. 

Mr. Eichbaum: Well, I think that's what we're trying to 
do. Gene, and, you know, that's why I talk the whole biological 
system; it's not just rockfish. 

Dr. L.E. Cronin: I appreciate the fact that you said 
that. Bill, but I just haven't had much of a sense today that 
we're really talking about all of the important biological 
components and processes in the Chesapeake Bay. We didn't know 
how to put it. I think we must learn that to give us a decent, 
sort of honorary, target for all of what we're talking about, 
because we're doing a great many good things, but we're not. 

Dr. Morris: Could I follow up on that because that brings 
up a point in terms of public policy, which I think is important 
and which the gentleman down the way raised before. What are we 
doing and do we know what we're doing? 

Well, I think what we're at is an incrementalization toward 
improvement. We have some information now on what the problems 
are and we are trying to move toward correcting those problems. 
We will find others as we go, and those will have to be brought 
into it. But it's this constant pushing toward goals in the 
mist which is some of the excitement and some of the frustration 
of this program. 

And the fact that some of those goals are mutually exclusive 
are going to continue to take our energies and others to try and 
help us define them. But from a scientific point of view, as 
you have. Gene, the ones who follow you need to do as you have 
done, I think, in terms of helping us define numerically what 


184 


those issues are so that we can achieve them on the social 
scientists. And it's not something that we can stop and say, 
"Right now we're going to do it." We have the best information 
we'll have today and we're moving to try and mitigate the 
problem. 

As we get more, we're going to have to make a couple of 
comments. One is that in terms of the use of the land, the land 
is very different from one part of the Bay to the other. When 
we look at the long cores from the upper Chesapeake Bay around 
Furnance Bay, the history of the diatoms, which are an 
indication of eutrophication, show a change in those species 
composition related with runoff from the land and with sewage 
input. 

If you go down to the Ware River or where you have a very 
sand substrate, even though there is still a lot of agriculture, 
the impact there was more beneficial. Prior to any European 
settlement, diatom populations were extremely sparse indicating 
oligotrophic conditions. Runoff from the land in that case 
probably enriched the estuary. 

I think that a management plan that does not consider the 
fact that the drainage areas are very different geologically is 
going to not be as effective as one that considers those 
differences. 

Another thing that I think needs to be considered is that 
even though we know that the anthropogenic impact is very great, 
there is still a climatic impact, so that in dry years the 
impact might be quite different that when there is high runoff, 
for example. 

Dr. D'Elia: I think with that we probably ought to call a 
halt to the day; it's been a long one, but I think an 
interesting one. I want to thank the members of the panel. I 
want to thank the speakers and the audience for participating. 

I hope it was a benefit to people. Before we adjourn. Dr. 

Thomas wants to speak a final word. 

Dr. Thomas: Yes, I would, Chris. Thanks very much. On 
behalf of the NOAA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
we'd like to thank you, Chris, for organizing today's acti¬ 
vities. I think it's been very, very fine. I'd like to thank 
the speakers for their excellent presentations, the panelists 
for their comments, and certainly the audience for participating 
and lasting through the day. 

Thank you very much. 


oU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE :i 9 8 8 -21 7 -81 7/ 


185 




























































































75 Years Stimulating America's Progress 
1913-1908 


302 91 










vs 

.VA J 

4 % % 
o 0 0 ' 


o flgll -' W » 

//^ °o *‘>.£> <5p * oVvVpV 

W :®H»: W V«* 

.4-°*. '*s$ms -, 

cv j> ^ \k^^- * 0 

o . * 





"/• Xo 

> A" * *- 

° ** ^%W£& £ V 

-£> * 


O 0 


V* A <A* 
& o NG </^ 

- V V 



<1 v^v^i^C^ ft aVY» v iC'iKN^ 0 X < -b. * 

• * ** \A VV »Jill*, ~wm\ 

• .a v A. "•mSSs if/lIV PV OSalPv 


— A 

» r ^5x t x „ % 

o» <<• "■ 

' J bv s> ° 

P<, ^ 

V" 1 ’V 



, / Vs 

o ^ ^ 

0 V'-V' o x 




frc? ~mm%* vy » 

a-A J 0 <£ J jv °\ 

<a ,■*£► «$►. * o57iiyUfi2f * v y» o 1 

- *. <y •* -V 9Vv » 

A A Ov*<*** % A°-- 

A* c oNG^ <? r o\ 

& »-«**** V. o ^ 


.A A, >m; ^f u v°o 

^ °4§i» Vf *V °^»: V 

mates'. \c^ „*h» * %«& «£mm°° %■& 

o V/f%Z\\$ a. Sy ^ 


cMr 


*v -V 


o 

o MS-s/, * ^ J vTx o £ «X V< V *1 MlS ” 0 

>o° • ^° L,S> '' 

W o«^Wr fc " 


^ ^ c? m s 
°J' S 3 - S 

. P V ^ ■ 

^ 4y %<» ^ 


•■?- f i 


lI * 


, V' 1 ” 

\ %4 

0 O 

* <t> yj. o 

/., 4 v- 

P nOTr, * 

T/*P< 



w ^ ^ ^ ^ = 
r O| ^iSKO 0 ^ 0 V 

A‘;;>>, A^A 0 '- 

> *> * T/i .(C * N\V<?/Vl O 



: 5C ; 

\/ '</<■ 
v>-<>,, tas®, sf^ 



>?*” 

r „-, - z ^ 

“V z °wf : J * 

, aas;~^A--?A-A-”A 

■ y ov‘ > ’ 'W .a^t ' y ov i> » 

o »■ 

£S® •= 

», « *• S^ilz£s p rJ' e - y- -V^ c? «* ^ §£w/y: 

Act o ^ °v ° -> ao x „ 

>?*^‘ AP‘ ’ 


u cr ❖ 

; A-O^ . 

1 AO, « 

A ^ A ', - ^- « . 

&>.,-, .*V\ . . r V»»KOV° 

■o A A ®^fe* A-s^ Of 

£ <&\ 1 Mm : »%*P* Av 

V v»w^P A/*T?a>^ ... V 

^o ^ C° NG ^<^ r<T+* J£*4 0 

*X& *°4 ®^&*. -w . 

<J 



A 6 s 

* 

❖ <A > CV ~ * x. 

■,<?\<,. r \, "“““’A 5 

V s s ^ Cv ^9 t 

O ^ A* Ar cV a 

o o ALaA * ^; 

O cf 3 ^J>. O A ’ ** ' ' to sV Af - 

* V V, oWjOrJ* %, * 


-oNc, 


v/ r 


v*o 

ij, ^ * o5 0 ^ 

V*n^V °° ^ 

L ^o//> J n* 

ft ^ 




0 A> ^ ^ .A ^ 


a a- 



s <A” Oj 1 

pV;a°; A. 



o 

2 *• V A J 

*-^\°o'\^yx"S\ * 5 ^:,^?'°o°’‘^t*^!AV’’ o°yi^?^ 

^ cv A) "> V s\P A, X\ //A°^v V sVP ^ XV _p , 

* ^P««^ uA®A“ o ^ * 

, ^ a v V’, 1 

•A»AT*^V J ’ ’ 4 </aAA 4 ' 0 o° ’ > 

^ : %* °iS&n *o4 Vo 

* V; ;; y/'/' A A 0 AV i VV\ ,> + *Z&/jU 0P £ * r> Neutralizing agent: Magnesiu 

o V* • r. * * V .,\W/,. V* V. 4 V 4 4 \ *• o ,0 T — 0ate M “ h 20M .' 

'» ^ - « v *’Vhl^ e <t -*? . / , v V„„. ^ , - r v PreservationTechnoloaies 

°o w <r Aift * \<? 'sMb ',0 *> * * 



^ v V r V O 

‘A vT<\ t> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ » v , 

O' v* Ao'°’ A‘0»«, V 

O ^ ae/rtfth lV O . A* T 


X)C °/!AS^lk3%V 

Deaciditied using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: March 2004 



jXX 

$ 4 « L '*< 4*0'°. <•■* A 

-A 

OV )M ||. 

- .»o v v*^R* 

d, •*•>,_o ,o J <k 


x %, j . 



* •> <y jWf Z 1 oJr vk o TT/m\N' . a> "vO, * mp&i# * -0 

A°4° A ' ••V&£*V * wV • ‘ A 

=A' \ 0 t ?MSS&h XX zMXh X ,«° /j 



vV 






: ** 5 ^4°* V** » W = 

•|t * X’Xa ^WlfW * *1 ^ 

* * 0 %^Xo° ’ ^ 

A ,.° XjsM&X* 0 


fs^V* * 4/P:VV\Y'v ~ iVX J '"- ivm&z o c3 w jV. o W/fi&X8$ - o 

^ Vj. ° wftwY ^ 

j. ‘“"'A 
* L, y % y> CON 

: £g of ° 

S ^/" 1 * * /t/Va’ « 0,%/’!- 

\ XX s'0^C\\& :0jk\ X 





^ v. o 
' Vo 1 
^°<6 

r A ’«n» "\^\ * * 

v *^\\ ^ 

* - 
C a ^A - 

^ 9 - 7 ^ » us , 'V £ . & 


kV^v 

I 0 

A, v V, 
\ 0 ^ \D * 



S V** s c?^^ * 

* vf, « a. mlMp’.XU 
» V*O v * Jgpm^ «. OV 
* ACX e ^sy§^0 0 *pvY 

^->x*" •;£? * * 


v s- 




V°^ 



u, 

<u~ 



<^\ I 

o A x:&' r:r 'Xs° ;;/X° • 1 - 

, *bv* ;4sHk'. W i 



o o 

^ono " 3 A 
XY aP ** 

* % </* * 

cT fs 




v A <> < 

c&'sa^** X 

l O <f Vj 


.A, 


> c* - 

<, * °4> ^ono’ 


\ XX : M;/\ 


X <0 

^ A<^ 

V v Qa S? 



* ,A V 




> O p ,• 

O >pYj, t 

X n v*. « ( - 

*cr ^ 


V ffin %;;^ ?n v 


A “•,V ,, ‘‘^ co»o, V J • • •>* 

P'. ^ -T. O-i » c ^ **. 4 r9 . 


o ^ ^ 

° V-V O 

»‘ 0 <^ 


O 

z 

^ -V^ > 0 °°. 

/. s ^ O y 0 A - i 

* °o P » c0N 

•f 1 0 ^ <1 

; ■ > ov i> 

*v o, v * 4 

V” *% *• ^< >ok °;oA;-/v"- 

*X Xy^::Xx c?V 

* x V „ » V*0 

° v°- 4 . ao 

' o ^ jy ^ c . 

♦tn .» „„ o. »» 0| 

^ *76 <5v ^ lA /h o v> -o, <v S AMD/f^X vf* 

* X'<? - S \A «* ^' fe% * 

O ** C-^^O O 





o ^ x 



■Aa' ''<,'^ 7 ."'' , 0 ^ A 


.V 


o N 


c u *’ u /? <y. ^ > ^ >• ~ ^ 1 Q G w ’ ■“ /f ^ ^y> ^ v — « ^ rQ T ’ ^>- 

W .^|»: "ov^ ^o' :Jp.; «• 

'/I* * !^;^^r. 

* Mk\ XX : Jfe ; :mh\ XX •• «» • ^ A v 

A A 



%W/#//\".W; 

& v • • Z'm^s° ' • >t» i 


V ^1 


Vs- 

,VA 


'•hO 

x°* 

\'. r Xn‘°»°'X,,*o 

"f % A 3 ,* 

; 


7 -w 

. „»Af.. f %A° bo ’ > c 


v % 

** ^ ^ 

VP O 


^ 6 o ; 


V. 


. ❖ A 

* A 
h v . 

O v?'* ^ 

O <$► ^ 

z Yv o 


D N 


Vs 1 

«?■ v, oWJiwj* a*' ••%. » wa» ^ v, o-w*w» XX. • * XX “.W®” < 

;a>°o° • * : ^?Yf:fVo° * ^ ’ ‘ oO-v« ^X'°’ 1 


;kman 

ERY INC. 

JUN 91 


?>°4 


i- ‘X ” vC >o X^ * ^ 

% X .4te «c. ^t. utbn*y* 


^ N. MANCHESTER, 
INDIANA 46962 


.^v V ^ 


1 o 

o A J :<. 1 


* y -pP v’ 

*A# / 

- x v J 

















































































































